Expansion Books

This is a powerful book that brings to life a time and period that is unknown to most Americans, including me. Yet, it was transformative for millions of people in the early 20th century. The impact of the attempted settlement of the Great Plains not only moved people out of Eastern and Midwest cities, but when the farming experiment failed, it deepened the human misery of the Great Depression and gave critical mass to the settlement of the Pacific Northwest when the homesteaders moved again.

The author evokes the look, feel, and sound of the area -- both as it was then, and as it is now. He makes you want to go there and wander the dilapidated homesteads and look at the empty spaces. He speaks casually to people, but in a way that gains their confidence. And he does the things you'd like to do -- like walk a mile in 30-degree-below temperatures, just to see what it's like.

I found the book to be a strong piece of social scholarship combined with superb current-events reporting. Few people can blend those two genres effectively. As a few other reviewers noted, having a dozen pages of pictures would have been a great addition, especially as the author spends a great deal of time writing about how hard it is to get a picture that really shows what it looks like out there.

It reads like a romance, but the harsh reality of events is what keeps you turning the pages seeking for more information about the people, their dreams and the bitter outcomes they have to face. The descriptions are detailed and yet not boring, they bring the reader to the time and location the facts occurred, as well as into the skin and mind of the people who experienced this slice of American history.

Bad Land: An American Romance
By Jonathan Raban

I've enjoyed just about everything that Jonathan Raban has written. Like DeToqueville and J Hector St John de Crevecoeur, he brings a foreigner's perspective to America. In "Hunting Mr. Heartbreak" (a reference to Crevecoeur) he recreates the steps of the French essayist. In "Old Glory, A Voyage down the Mississippi," he follows in the footsteps of the French voyageurs and Mark Twain.

In Bad Land: An American Romance, Raban travels the vast "American Desert" that stretches from eastern Washington and Oregon through Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas. You can pick this book up at any chapter and immerse yourself in history. The chapter on "fencing' details the long, arduous work of reigning in the landscape, involving cutting trees for fence-posts and stringing miles of barbed wire, brought in by the trainful across the prairies.

The people who settled the plans were, for the most part, "pale city folk" who had come to America from Scandinavia, England and Ireland. They knew nothing of the hardships facing them: they relied on the promotions of the railroads and the Government.
When the Dust Bowl hit in the thirties, they were again victimized by the Feds, just as the people of New Orleans were after Katrina.
Raban quotes Robert Louis Stevenson, who was overwhelmed by the land's vast sameness. Some people couldn't handle it: they died of loneliness.
I would recommend reading "Bad Land' in conjunction with Timothy Egan's "The Worst Hard Time: The Untold story of those who survived the great American Dust Bowl.," and "Letters from the Dust Bowl" edited by Caroline Henderson.
Another excellent Western writer is Ivan Doig: "Mountain Time," "This House of Sky," "Heart Earth," etc.

****

I'm a great admirer of Jonathan Raban, so don't expect a disinterested review here! But let me have a shot at reflecting on what many other reviewers, of all stripes, find lacking here. Raban is a very idiosyncratic writer, and Bad Land, like his other works, is a splendid literary hippogriff. Nobody is going to find exactly what he or she expected when they picked the book up. They will certainly find accounts of the homesteading movement and of the hopes and tragedies of the families who moved to eastern Montana in the early Twentieth Century. But they will come across many different things as they move from chapter to chapter: history, landscape, weather. But they will only find one thing here with continuity, Jonathan Raban: Raban digging into the history of the soil and the implements used to plough it, Raban bewildered by the landscape as if he is standing in a Dali painting, Raban nearly incapacitated as he tries to ambulate over a few city blocks in the sub-zero weather in imitation of those early homesteaders. And, as always, Raban, the quintessential outsider amidst outsiders, garnering not a few odd looks as he button-holds Montanans in pursuit of his quest.

But, really, it's not Jonathan Raban, per se, that holds this book together and makes it an amazing read. Rather, it's his always literate and splendid writing. Readers familiar with Shakespeare will notice how many times, consciously or subconsciously, Raban interjects parts of the lines from A Midsummer Night's Dream about the poet's "giving to airy nothings a local habitation and a name" and employs them to describe the homesteaders. I almost missed "earth standing hard as iron, water like a stone" as being from Christina Rossetti's poem (posthumously turned into an English hymn) "In The Bleak Mid-Winter." I'm sure I did miss many other subtleties in the reading of the work. But the point here is that you are reading just as much about the plucky -at times, eccentric- quest of a man who views the world through the eyes of great literature as you are about the plight of the homesteaders and their eastern Montana descendents.

If this mix appeals to you, you will love this book. If not, rest assured. You will find many textbook and academic histories on the subject in your local library.

This is a fine, informative, and entertaining book about the homestead experience in eastern Montana during the years 1910-1925. Raban has done considerable historical research to bring to life this period of boom-and-bust western expansion. It is well written as any good novel, introducing us to the families of those who went west to fulfill the Jeffersonian dream of independent Americans living off the land. That the promise built into this national myth was, in fact, mythical is part of what makes this account so deeply moving and fascinating. Raban finds and interviews the descendants of those homesteaders and reconstructs a time and place and way of life that flourished, as long as the rains fell, and then disappeared as soon as the next cycle of drought set in.

The book is based in great part on a then unpublished memoir by one settler, Percy Wollasten, and the recently published photographs of a local photographer, Evelyn Cameron (both books now in print at amazon). Meanwhile, driving around the area in the 1990s in his rented Jeep, Raban also records vivid observations of the rural world that now exists there, the remains of the old one subsumed into large, modern cattle ranches, where rambling homes are revealed to result from the assembling of many separate abandoned ones.

Raban's picture is wide enough to include Teddy Roosevelt's progressivist vision of America and the schemes of the railroads, who championed westward settlement with pseudoscience and false advertising. And it extends into the Dust Bowl years and the next Roosevelt administration, as Raban follows the many "starved out" and disillusioned homesteaders who pulled up stakes and moved yet further west in search of sustainable lives. This journey takes him across Montana to the Columbia River Basin in central Washington and Seattle, where streams and city streets flood with rain and snow melt.

This is an excellent book for anyone with an interest in the American West, especially the collision between national myth and actuality. Raban attributes rural westerners' deep distrust of government, "progress," and urban liberalism to the memories of betrayal left in the wake of failed homesteading. There is even a place in his argument for the Unabomber, whose arrest while he travels through far western Montana, marks the extreme of this disaffection. Readers will also like Ian Frazier's "Great Plains" and Mary Clearman Blew's "All But the Waltz."

For those interested in technological history this is a great book to start with. While it may look daunting this book analyzes the social, political and technological implications of building a railroad that spans the country. It looks at the corruption and mismanagement of workers as well as looking at how the country benefited from being made whole. This is a great place to start for understanding the United States economic rise to power after the Civil War.

Empire Express is an amazingly well done epic.

Starting at the beginning of the Age of Steam when only dreamers thought that America's greatest mid century engineering feat was a remote possibility, and winding up at the beginning of the Gilded Age, when only scoundrels seemed to be the survivors of this series of events, David Haward Bain weavers the tale of the building of the first Transcontinental Railroad. From the passes and tunnels of the Sierra Pacific and the Indian dislocations caused by the construction of the route, to the New York Boardroom skirmishes and battles, the swindles and the amazing Washington bribery that embittered two US Presidencies, Bain leaves no stone unturned in the description of THE event that finally bound the East and West coasts of the United States together for the for the time.

Starting in the mid 1840's when mountain men still roamed the American West and finishing in the early 1870's amid complex scandals quite beyond belief, Bain highlights just what an economic driver capitalism has been in the settlement and development of America as we know it today. For over 250 years men of all nations searched for the fabled Northwest Passage, the non existent sea lane that supposedly connected the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It wasn't until 1862, during the height of the American Civil War that America decided to create on land the passage that did not exist by sea.

This is the story of that incredible undertaking, truly the final step in America's Manifest Destiny.

Although animation movies are usually fun to watch and take less, MUCH less time to complete, they are not always the better part. As for this book, it ain't the Polar Express and even without big names like Tom Hanks, this book has it's share of characters.

This compelling book takes you back into time when The America's have had their first settlers on both sides of the country and cities were emerging. East coast and west coast are battling for the first railroad from east to west. Powerful alliances are forged and tremendous labour is being made. Who will win?

If you ask me, the reader has won. All details about indians, labour-, cultural- and financial problems are brought forward and it really gives you a good view of the times.

This book is a great history novel, but don't expect a fairytale.

Empire Express: Building the First Transcontinental Railroad

"Light at the End of the Tunnel"


It took me nearly as long to read this mammoth book as it took to build the Railroad upon which it is based. But the effort was worth it in both instances: the Great Transcontinental Railroad literally united the Union at the same time the Civil War was jeopardizing it. There is enough material here for several books: the Railroad Surveys which opened the west to exploration; the visionary dreams of the Chief Engineers (of which there were several); the desperate attempts to fund the project; the physical and logistical challenges; and the political scandal that nearly wrecked it (the Credit Mobilier Scandal).

A lot to attempt, and to a large degree David Howard Bain accomplishes it. But there is simply too much detail, too many names and dates, too involved a plot. I can't help but compare it to David McCullough's excellent history of the building of the Brooklyn Bridge, The Great Bridge. Had he written the story, it might have been more manageable. But Bain deserves an A for effort.

In a highly-visual story like this, the publisher could have made better use of the ample photographic record of the railroad.

Holding companies, stock watering, stock certificate bribery on the floor of Congress, no less!

The story of the building of the transcontinental railroad is far more than the story of Irish and Chinese laborers moving toward an unknown meeting point in the west. And Bain paints that story in detail.

Changes in railroad legislation were bought off by stock contributions and other favors. Congress was for sale rather than dealing with serious measures like Reconstruction.

Meanwhile, Union Pacific VP Thomas Durant was bleeding and skimming the company dry, including changing the UP's course and more.

Read all about America's first huge business scandal, intertwined with one of its biggest political ones, in this hard hitting book. And, read about those Irish and Chinese laborers as well.

This book provides a fascinating parallel between the fate of the Roman empire and the probable end of our present efforts to become the world's superpower.
It is very well written and provides extensive notes and documentation.

I have never bought the argument that the United States' eventual decline is an historical inevitability and perhaps even now underway. Those who use this argument love to hold up Ancient Rome as their analogy - a great and seemingly indestructible empire eventually destroyed through internal decadence and a failure to adapt to external changes.

Well, the United States is not the Roman Empire and as author Cullen Murphy points out early on, the real lesson of history is that it rarely repeats itself, at least not in such a way that what has happened in the past can act as a blueprint for what is happening now, or may happen in the future.

Imperial greatness does tend to blaze and fade and it is possible to find parallels in the disappearance of Rome to that of Spain in the Americas, the Ottomans and even the British Empire - parallels but not exactitudes. The American Empire is like none of the above in that it one of projection rather than occupation. This empire's expansion, in progress since World War II, is founded on ideas and influence. It may stall or even be rolled back, but there will be no effect on the territorial integrity of the US itself. There will be no sack of Washington or Fort Knox's gold being carried off by triumphant foreign invaders.

It is the parallels and the differences that Murphy addresses in this book, taking a concept that has been so glibly asserted in public debate and subjecting it to some rigorous academic analysis. In doing so he has linked a challenging outline of where the US may be heading with some fascinating thumbnail sketches of the politics, economics and social condition of the Roman Empire which will delight history buffs and those interested in the laws of cause and effect.

He notes that in the past Americans themselves have seen links between their republic and that of Ancient Rome in its more idealised forms, one only has to look at the architecture of many of Washington's great public buildings to see that, and today Washington is just as much the centre of the universe, the place to be to see history in the making, as Rome was 1800 years ago.

The US dominates its world as Rome did at its height; Rome assimilated the people it conquered into the empire and many of them became proud Roman citizens; the US has its `melting pot', Hollywood and McDonalds, but above all there is America's military might, as impressive as in the days when the Legions turned the Mediterranean Sea into an imperial lake.

Yet in the end Rome could not keep this up, and in one very definite parallel Murphy notes the reason as a persistent threat on the borders coupled with the vast expenditure required to keep deterrent forces permanently in the field - increasingly onerous taxes on the one hand and deficit spending on the other.

Other links Murphy suggests stimulate the imagination: the Romans' use of barbarian mercenaries to defend the later empire is compared to the civilian contractors that perform an increasing number of services in Iraq and Afghanistan once reserved for the military; the movement of political authority away from the Roman centre to outlying provinces or military commanders linked to privatisation; the failure of both to see the warning signs in initial reversals (Rome - Teutoburg Forest; US - Vietnam).

Did Rome in fact fall or did it just fade away? Rome was sacked in 410AD, but the empire limped along in the West for at least another 50 to 80 years and in the East for another 1000. Might it not be possible for the US, preoccupied with its internal difficulties, to imperceptibly surrender its superpower status to China, India, or even, as Mark Leonard has provocatively argued in his 2005 book, the European Union?

Murphy concedes this is a possibility but in the end rejects the Rome-and-America analogy as flawed:

"Rome accepted and bestrode its destiny. Americans don't yet agree that an empire is what we've become, much less agree that we ought to be one. The political gulf between Rome and America is wide, morally and procedurally. America's democratic form of government looks to us like a flawed and tarnished thing and we lament its grave deficiencies. But it's more adaptable, just, and robust than anything Rome came up with in a thousand years. Elections remain a check on power, a crude and clumsy but as yet sacred way to reorientate the compass."

Murphy loses his way on occasions. His suggestion that the US could rekindle the militia ethic of the past with a program of national service for all young people is political suicide and a logistical nightmare. Yet his fundamental proposition that America has the tools to reinvent itself and adapt to changing conditions in a way Rome never had, is sound.

This is a concise, tightly argued book that deserves the attention of everyone interested in international current affairs and the world their children and grandchildren will live in.

Cullen Murphy's book "Are We Rome?" is an engagingly erudite, yet very accessible read. Wisely sidestepping the generalizing tendencies of the historians, Murphy poses many questions for the readers' consideration. He has intimate knowledge of the Roman ruins and is steeped in much of the history and archeological studies regarding the Romans. The writing is lean, tight, and for the most part enjoyable - he does a fine job of bringing the reader into his thinking processes.

If there is any structural aspect of this book, it would have to be the six parallels between the Roman and American empires. He discusses each in broad terms, with convincing regard for the current American stance (such as the privatization of government functions and the ongoing political gridlocks). Murphy makes a case for the ongoing reinvention of ourselves as Americans as one quality that the Romans in their smug self-satisfactions never possessed. He points out that America has been through more social transformations in two centuries than Rome did in a thousand years.

One very interesting topic Murphy discusses has to do with the current issue of immigration into the United States. For the Romans, it was the inexorable assimilation of the "barbarians"; the incorporation of other cultures into the Roman orbit became indispensible as the centuries rolled on. But it was also the primary reason why Rome did not "fall" either; it just kind of faded away. Murphy at this point quotes the Roman historian Livy: "An empire remains powerful only as long as its subjects rejoice in it".

Towards the end, the "Are We Rome?" question is posed - and Murphy vaguely replies: In a thousand ways no; in a handful of ways, yes. His final point is: We are Rome in that we are making many of the same mistakes (military over-expansion, etc), but the antidote is that we are American, and as such, we will make the necessary changes (like taking more interest in other cultures).

This read is entertaining and highly recommended for the thoughtfully inclined.

Parataxis

The Cloud Reckoner

Extracts: A Field Guide for Iconoclasts

Since this is a commonly shared comparision it will not due to comment . However the book is well written and thoughtfully compiled. History and insight are hallmarks to a interesting subject. Enjoyable read.

This book compares contemporary America to the Roman Empire. In asking whether we are Rome, Murphy is really asking whether we are doomed to decline and fall, as Rome did. When I began this book I was thinking of Rome at its peak. However, its focus is really on the decline of the empire. With the focus on the negative aspects of the (mostly late) Roman Empire and of America, it gradually becomes clear that the author does not much like either Rome or America. Two examples from the text will explain what I mean. The author takes exception to the plaque left by Neil Armstrong on the moon that says "We came in peace for all mankind," apparently on the grounds that Americans should not be speaking for all mankind. The second refers to the famous `line in the sand' episode from Roman history. In 168 BC, the Roman Consul Gaius Popillius Laenas drew a line in the sand around King Antiochus IV of the Seleucid Empire who was about to invade Egypt, saying, "Before you cross this line I want you to give me a reply for the Roman Senate". The implication was that Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus wisely chose to withdraw. This would seem to be a triumph of diplomacy since armed conflict was averted without any loss of life or an arrow being fired. Murphy holds this up as an example of Roman arrogance. Arrogance or not, the responsibility that comes with power is such that great nations cannot be spectators and do have to show leadership.

In general the book consists of a series of musings about the similarities between American and Roman governments, militaries, industry, etc. The chapter on privatization of government services is more polemic than scholarly discussion. Unfortunately there seems to be no strong underlying thesis. That there are many similarities between Rome and America should come as no surprise because the imperatives of governing a large nation state are as universal as gravity. In keeping with this idea, most of the similarities between America and Rome would as well apply to the British Empire. Early on, the author tells us that the school history class cliché about those who forget history being doomed to repeat it is not particularly true. This is disconcerting, because what then is the point of this book?

The question posed in the title is of course rhetorical. All empires rise and fall. Murphy reminds us that in some sense Rome never went away completely. Many of our institutions today, not to mention our language, are direct descendents of their Roman counterparts. That America faces many of the same challenges as Rome did is a given. Certainly there are many similarities between the body politic of both Rome and America, but no more than with other large nations. There are also some of the same failings. Yet there are differences as well. America has many strengths, and Murphy does mention some of them at the very end, though only in passing. The entrepreneurial spirit that beginning in the late nineteenth century would power America to global prominence is not mentioned. Obviously Murphy is not happy with the America he sees around him. He makes a strong case for America being Rome at its worst and suggests some ideas to turn things around. Unfortunately, he makes a much poorer case for America NOT being Rome.

Andrew Jackson is one of the better Presidents in the history of the United States. He set several precidents while in office, and his outgoing personality and rugged exterior made him the President of the people.

While Jackson is often thought of as the hero of the battle of New Orleans and a man who could not contain his tempor this book shows a somewhat different side. It shows a calculating Jackson who did not always let his emotions make snap judgements.

Remini does a good job condensing his pre-Presidency and his time in office to under 400 pages which is no easy task. The book includes the major events one would expect to find in a Jackson biography and the standard biographical information. It also incldes short vinnetes which gives an insight to the type of man that Andrew Jackson was. This abridged version does a good job condensing the exciting material. This is a must read!

The Life of Andrew Jackson

Remini is best known for his all-inclusive three volumes of the life of Andrew Jackson, and this book is a valuable comprehensive version. Jackson is portrayed with both his strengths and his poor leadership qualities. Overall, however, it is possible to conclude that the author asserts a sympathic version of the man whose era bears his name--Andrew Jackson. This book is an historical narrative at its best.

Over the years, President Andrew Jackson's standing among historians has gone up and down. In this biography, Robert Remini presents a well-balanced account of this controversial President. For instance, Professor Remini explains President Jackson's Indian policy through the prism of a 19th century nation-builder, while, at the same time, not letting Jackson off the hook for his often heavy-handed treatment of the Indians. Moreover, Professor Remini presents Jackson as someone who cared deeply for the nation, and would not tolerate what he saw as abuse of the public good. As examples of this, Professor Remini provides 2 important events: the Tariff/Nullification Crisis of 1832 and the Bank War. In both incidents, President Jackson acted in what he perceived to be the nation's best interest (and here, Professor Remini is rather sympathetic toward Jackson) calling the offending party to task in some form. While I am not a huge fan of President Jackson's politics in general, reading this book did lead me to have a higher opinion of Jackson's abilities to govern the nation.

This is an excellent book, as are all of Professor Remini's books. They are thorough and very easy to read which lends to the excitement of learning history. Recently I purchased a letter from 1834 which refers to the censure of Andrew Jackson. I'm not sure how to contact Professor Remini, but I think he would be very much interested in reading this letter. It was written on April 18, 1834, by Rufus McIntire (1784-1866), City of Washington, and sent to William A. Hayes, South Berwick, Maine, about 21 days after the censure was passed by the Senate. I'll quote sections from this letter, hoping to inspire students of history to read Professor Remini's books.

"You will probably see the Presidents message of protest &c to the Senate which has put that dignified body on the defence & in a passion. They evidently see that the issue is against them unless they can turn it on some collateral issue or some deduced assumption of principles abstractedly from some part of the message. Mr. Leigh has spoken today in which he has shown very clearly that he has not the experience & tact of a politician. He has lived too long in Virginia ever to extend his views beyond the limits & local circumstances of his State except what he gets from books generally of European history & politics. He labored hard today to explain the resolution against which the President protests & says it means no such censure on the President as he supposes. The opposition generally is the Senate manifested as much dissatisfaction with the speech as with the message. Benj Hardin of Ken. of the House - talented & coarse man of the opposition - remarked that of all great men he had ever seen Mr Leigh is the smallest. Mr Leighs defence is the opposite of that set up yesterday by Mr South and who with a harsh'hood & effrontery that shocked every body declared that the resolution was passed as the foundation & basis of legislation. This is in contradiction not only to its language & import but in flat contradiction to every avowal while under discussion. In answer to the objection to its passage as a naked censure without any legislative effect it was urged not that any other legislation was contemplated but upon the duty of the Secy of the Treasury to restore the deposits after this expression that their removal was not approved by both branches. If that alone had been the object - simple expression that they advised to a restorative or disapproved of this removal would have been sufficient."

"Today being, one of those days for private business in the House, has been literally wasted in attempts to get up the appropriation bill & to introduce various resolutions & a call of the House in consequence. The House adjourned at rather an early hour there being so much excitement that there did not appear to be any prospect of business or any good done by continuing longer in Session. Mr Wise attempted to introduce a set of resolutions on the subject of the powers of Congress over the money in the Treasury intended to negative some supposed deduction [declaration?] of principle, contained in the Presidents message - and failing gave notice he should offer them every day during the Session or till recessed - Mr Peytre gave notice also that whenever they were received he should move a substitute by way of amendment of ???? declaring the late vote of the Senate, censuring the President in an impeachable matter alone belonging to the House as the impeaching power, an usurpation & assumption of the prerogatives of the House of Reps by the Senate. So you see the battle is but begun."

"The opposition here speak confidently of carrying Maine at the next election. King is to be candidate f[or] Governor & he says the Jeffersonians will be out against the administration shortly & only delays at present for the sake of saving Mitchell. Is King correct in his avowal & his letters - (letter at least -) to one of his opposition in regard to the Jeffersonians & if so will Mr Seaver go with it? I am pleased with the present appearance of the Ags - It is what I expected - hoped at least but from the complexion of the Jeffersonians I feared would not be seen. A short time must disclose the views of our politicians. I regret to learn so many of our Portland friends are in favor of a national Bank - or rather at present think proper to express it. No other than the constitutional ground will enable us to defeat the ???? of the Bank - all the South who ???? constitutional objections if a bank is to be chartered prefer the old to a new one with like provisions - I can say no more at present but must close - "

Few Americans have won the mythical status enjoyed by Andrew Jackson. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the champion of the common man, Jackson came to Washington as an outsider, the first President born outside the thirteen original states, indeed the first president born neither in Virginia nor Massachusetts. Throughout Jackson historiography, Jackson via his policy of `rotation' in office has been accused of instituting the spoils system in American politics. This criticism highlights how Whig myths have come to permeate the historical writing on this subject.

Starting with James Parton in 1860, anti-Jackson historians have followed this criticism, blaming Jackson for replacing a supposed merit system with a partisanship that corrupted the civil service for generations. Despite further research since Jackson's time, many historians have uncritically repeated these accusations without examining the actual record of appointments during the presidency unhappily described by some as "The Reign of Andrew Jackson".

There have been essentially four cycles of studies into the life and Presidency of Andrew Jackson. The first cycle began soon after the death of Jackson with the "liberal patrician" or "Whig" school, who were generally unfavourable towards the policy of rotation. Most familiar is James Parton's classic The "Life of Andrew Jackson". So critical of rotation was Parton that he stated "this single feature of his administration would suffice to render it deplorable rather than admirable." Other members of the "Whig" school include Sumner, Schouler and Von Holst, all very critical of Jackson's policy of rotation. Parton's biography was the standard source on the Jacksonian era, until the second cycle represented by the Progressive Historians, such as John Spencer Bassett's "The Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), which cast Jackson in somewhat of a different light. Bassett reduces the amount of blame put on Jackson for rotation by suggesting that his democratic views made him oblivious to unintentional dangers from partisan appointments. However, the Progressives shared with the Whigs the view that Jackson had brought a spoils system to national politics and that its effects were negative.

Historians in the third cycle of Jacksonian studies, of which Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Age of Jackson" (1945) served as a pivotal work, shifted attention away from Jackson himself towards larger forces in his era. Historians of the third cycle, such as Hofstadter and Hammond, debated the effects of class and culture in determining party differences while showing little interest in evaluating Jackson's rotation policy, though tending to criticise it briefly. No biographies of Jackson discussed the policy of rotation in depth during the next thirty years.

The appearance of Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Jackson marked the start of the fourth cycle of interpretation. Based on modern scholarship, Remini covers all aspects of Jackson's life and career, demonstrating his contribution to the great developments of nineteenth century America, particularly empire, freedom and democracy. By returning to first hand sources, Remini shows that the policy of rotation in office has been exaggerated and misunderstood. However, having set himself the remarkable task of producing a thorough study of the life and Presidency of Jackson, Remini did not have the scope for a detailed re-interpretation and re-evaluation of rotation. Since Remini's work there have been many scholarly works on Jackson, but none offer an in-depth reassessment of rotation as touched upon by Remini.

Remini states that Jackson has received a disproportionate share of the blame for the spoils system and that there is a need to disprove the Whig myths, which have come to permeate the historical writings of historians over the generations. Remini was not the first to stress the need for such a revision; in fact a similar plea was expressed by J.R. Poinsett in the "Oration on the life and character of Andrew Jackson, delivered July 4, 1845" when he stated about Jackson, "His instinctive love of justice... gave a high tone to his government and exalted the honor of his country. His hatred of corruption rendered his administration pure.... I will content myself with expressing my belief that in future time the impartial historian will justify both his motives and his conduct on this trying occasion.

Remini offers the reader a great insight into the pioneering mind of one of America's greatest Presidents.


[The above Review is taken in part from 'Andrew Jackson's policy of 'Rotation in Office' by Alexander Rayden. © Copyright 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved].

I feel that I have something in common with both Stewart Swerdlow and David Icke. We are all victims of micro- wave torture. Knowing this, it becomes very important to thresh away the chaff from the wheat. When you are subjected to this torture, one soon becomes aware that THEY are able to implant any thought or memory. Many New Age people like to remain positive, and they cling to the belief that these strange thoughts and voices are from God, Angels or benevolent Space Brothers but the kontollers like to work on you, especially during the night, when you receive "electric dreams". I believe that this is the explanation for many "alien abduction" tales, though not all. Some would interpret this as evidence of a split personality, the truth is that somehow we are all subjected to this electronic harassment and torture, and all of us are to some extent "mentally ill".

I agree with Swerdlow that there is a great deal of evil in the world, and that satanic abuse is rampant, many thousands of children go missing every year. Cattle mutilation must be strictly monitored and is solid physical evidence of a non- human technological and "intelligent" presence. However one has to consider that it is in the interests of "the illumanati" to make humans very afraid and spread the illusion of hopelessness, so that we are unable to challenge their power. Like Icke, Swerdlow believes in the Reptilian underground, and that entrances to this underworld are located around the Earth underneath palaces and government buildings. He presents an alternative Earth History discounting evolution and emphasizing extra- terrestrial intervention.

I was slightly disappointed by this book; I expected the Swerdlows to dish more dirt on the aristocracy, given it's title. The passages which deal with Stewart's travels are most entertaining and well written, but the weird synchronicities and coincidences that he relates are all a result of this micro- wave command and control system. Janet Swerdlow's pieces at the back of the book are wise and insightful, and do not lead to absolute despair; perhaps everyone has lessons to learn from the attitude of of the kontrollers.

In my opinion, Stewart Swerdlow is one of the most brilliant men on earth at this time. What a great man, and a brave man, to tell his story and spend his life trying to help others defeat the evil men who are attempting to bring in the NWO.
His story is fascinating and at times unbelievable, but so much of it is coming to pass just as he was told it would.
A must read!!!

The Hyperspace Helper: A User-Friendly GuideThe True Reality of SexualityThe Unknown Zone - Interviews of Stewart Swerdlow, Author of 'The Healer's Handbook- A Journey Into Hyperspace'

I found this book very to the point, no beating around the bush. It is not meant to scare anyone but to inform all of what is truley going on in our world, OUR World. It may seem so off the wall to many but that is what the controlers what us to do, think it is so far fetched that we will all think this kind of stuff only happens in the movies! Steward puts it out there for you, to at least be informed and for you to ultimatly make your own mind up. And the excerpts from his wife Janet, are wonderful, I will now look into her writings. This is a must read for anyone out there looking for truth, truth that may be hard to take in but it can be done, as long as you can step out of the box we have all been in all our lives and for those especially that think they are not in that box... prison

Who is to say what is true and what is imagined in a book of this sort? Some of the author's assertions are fascinating but others one can drive a fleet of buses through. You pays your money and takes your choice. Most of the content jives with the theories of David Icke, though Stewart actually takes things a couple of steps further into left field. Or of course...he may be right. I found Janet Swerdlow's comments and insights that comprise the final 20 pages of the book to be the most enlightening and helpful of all. She really is grounded and at the same time gifted with a rare insight into the human spirit. So Stewart definitely got something right!!

The radical subject becomes believable under this author's pen, even though not much is new except for some detail on subjects found in other writings. However, midway through his work, the author loses his way and meanders, without apparent rhyme or reason, into misadventures with a nefarious female who is his nemesis, a demon, karma, or more. This aside may be pertinent, but the author does not demonstrate its pertinence and the digression spoils much of my initial favorable impression. I wish I knew what the author was trying to say about this involvement. The excerpts at the back of the book were enlightening and well-reasoned. This author thinks clearly. Overall, the book did not live up to expectations but may direct me to the secondary author's work.

An overview of the military conquests of Alexander the Great whose campaigns spread the influence of Greek culture into modern civilization. This is more of the story that wasn't shown in the 2004 movie. Once you learn more of the real Alexander you will truly wonder why Colin Farrell was cast as him.

Paul Cartledge is one of the deans of the historians of the ancient world. He is one of the leading experts - perhaps the leading expert - on the Spartans, and his work both with the written word and PBS has advanced the field of history.

So it was with great anticipation that I dove into Cartledge's book, "Alexander the Great." Alexander may have had more books written about him than any historical figure from antiquity, save perhaps Julius Caesar. This guy has been analyzed from a variety of different perspectives by incredibly talented historians. So what is Cartledge's angle, and how does it fit into the existing bibliography?

First, you have to understand that Cartledge has not written a strict chronological work of history, but rather one that is thematic. Accordingly, this is not the best book to start with if you're just diving into Alexander the Great's world for the first time. Chapters focus on the divinity of Alexander, or his generalship, or his legacies, etc. Cartledge's main focus is to analyze what kind of man Alexander was - just why in the heck did he take the Macedonian army all the way to India, and where would he have ultimately gone if the army hadn't revolted?

Cartledge has also written a historiography of Alexander. Much of the book is given to sifting other sources for accuracy, past bias, and the comparative merits of past works. Again, this makes the book easier to read if you are well-grounded in the field of Alexander. Full disclosure - I studied Alexander and his campaigns in college. I would imagine that if this was your first book on Alexander, you'd wonder why there was such a fuss over the guy because Cartledge is not interested in explaining the Battle of Issus in any great detail or explaining his new theory of how Alexander won at Gaugamela.

But that does not mean that this isn't an important book. Cartledge ultimately decides that Alexander was not motivated by political concerns ("Let's Hellenize those eastern folks!") or a desire to become a god on earth. For Cartledge, Alexander was a thrill-seeking hunter whose greatest joy came from conquest. And he would drive to the ends of the earth to sate his lust for battle.

In addition to 260-plus pages of excellent writing (although it is quite high-brow and littered with British references that I didn't quite get, such as comparing Alexander to a notorious British general who had, shall we say, strikingly unusual hygiene habits), Cartledge includes a detailed glossary, dramatis personae, and most helpfully, an annotated bibliography where he gives his two cents about many of the other sources.

All in all, this is an excellent addition to the library of any historian of the ancient world - professional or amateur. But if you are seeking to put your first toe into the waters of Alexander, you should probably start somewhere else.

Alexander. After 2,328 years who else can be identified by a single name, without a title, and still be almost universally known? Often beloved, or at least highly respected, in the west, almost universally despised in much of the east, very few with knowledge of Alexander have no feelings one way or the other.
Over the years I have read almost every book reasonably available about this remarkable man. Some of these books are highly informative but ponderous in the extreme. Some treat Alexander as the untarnished hero, the darling of the west, while others treat him as a villain and a drunk, unworthy of praise.
It is up to each person to decide who Alexander was or is, but Mr. Cartledge has produced a well-written book, informative, without bias or agenda. It has excellent detail without dragging the reader into the minutea which is of interest only to the professional historian. His discussion covers the noble and the base about this man, who is, unarguably, one of the most important persons in the history of the western and middle-eastern worlds.
Bob

Being a history addict and a Soldier has led me to read everything printed in english on Alexander the Great (nuministic and logistical books included). Some biographers depict him as a shining idealized soldier-king, while others as a drunken despot on a self delusional path to deification. Cartledge balances the historical record with fresh interpretations of events and a common sense test of putting the reader in Alexander's shoes at the moment of each event. This leads to a connection with the man and an understanding of his actions that lacks in most biographies of Alexander. The answer, it seems, is that Alexander was a man like any other before and since; brilliant and flawed, just like the rest of us. If you are going to read your first book on Alexander, or only one book ever, this is the one to pick up.

I enjoyed reading "Alexander the Great" by Paul Cartledge, Greek History Professor at Cambridge University. Alexander the Great is among (if not) the greatest soldier in recorded history He achieved stunning military and political success in his short life. The book is structured thematically, which I found interesting and has good illustrations of battle lines, maps, glossary, bibliography, among other things.

The author methodically explores the various fascinating aspects of the brilliant and visionary Alexander the great including his leadership style, his divinity, his conquests and how he related to the various countries that he conquered.

After reading this book, I recommend that you also read "Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy". It is a thoughtful and perceptive book that is a joy to read. Another excellent biography of Alexander the great is "The Nature of Alexander" by Mary Renault.

I recommend "Alexander the Great" to anybody that needs to understand the life and times of Alexander the Great as well as his numerous achievements.

While I agree with most of the author's conclusions, I will say it was written in a very disjointed and hard to read style. Very typical "academic" professorial book. Very dry, wordy, and it went off on tangets about the virtues of archaeology vs oral tradition that had little to do with the subject.

The author was very loose with what he considered "Facts", and took the tiniest shred of evidence that supported his conclusions to be solid facts, while anything against it was shot down.

The fact is, we will never understand exactly what happened that day. The author makes some brilliant guesses, but then irritates the reader by considering them facts to build the rest of his case on. The most glaring problem I saw was using Indian accounts to "prove" Custer rode on to the second ford, then returned and hung out on Cemetery hill for an hour or two. Nothing really definitively supports this either way, and the author should admit its only his guess as to what happened. The book gives some good insight to what happened, it just needs to be written in a better flowing style, and those things that can't be proven need to be stated as such.

I do not doubt Dr Fox summarises accurately the recent archeological evidence, and is the only book--as opposed to article--to do so. His interpretation of that evidence is much less reliable. For example, if his sample is accurate, and 3% of all Springfield carbine rounds jammed and had to be pried out of the breech with a knife, this does NOT mean that only 6 of 210 carbines misfired. It means that if a weapon fired 10 rounds, there was a 26% chance of jamming--and indeed, he quotes but ignores burial party accounts of "dozens" of jammed weapons the victorious Sioux and Commanche didn't even bother to carry away. His confidence that he knows the distribution of companies between wings because he knows what Upton's CAVALRY TCTICS prescribed bespeaks a man who never served in any branch of any service. Clearly he never heard that "doctrine is the opinion of the senior officer present." Other instances abound.
Buy the book. James Donovan quarried it heavily for TERRIBLE CLORY and gave Dr. Fox less credit than was his due. But don't take the conclusions as seriously as the evidence.

Hint: It WASN'T a glorious, mythical "Last Stand" on Custer Hill.

Page 221: "There is neither archaeological nor historical evidence of a ... famous last stand and ... Monument Hill area did not even see the last of the fighting."

Many modern Little Bighorn historians give lip service to the idea of giving new attention to traditional Indian accounts of the battle or to the latest archaeological findings.

Well, Fox does more than lip service. He actually gives full attention to both areas.

As he's a professional archaeologist himself, the second half comes naturally, and occupies the first third of the book. His extensive study of cartridge and bullet remains from both 7th Cav and Indian groups is detailed in the first third of the book.

Then, he takes an open-minded look at Indian accounts, with proper skepticism toward inflated claims, when warranted, as well as proper claim toward facile dismissal of many of their claims, often used by partisans (usually Custer hagiographers) with axes to grind.

This takes up about half the book.

The final one-sixth can be characterized by the name of one chapter: "Fate, Blame and Strategy." Fox is clearly a neutralist, but your typical Custer hagiographer has already written him off as hopelessly biased in a few reviews here.

What actually happened is troopers that were poorly trained, had single-shot rifles great at long distance but behind the firepower of either Henry repeaters or bows and arrows at closer distance -- not to mention war clubs and such at closest distance, and who eventually panicked and bunched themselves around commanders -- Keough, then Custer -- while firing few shots. (Note: Fox shows the same happened with Fetterman's troops.)

No "cowardice." Fox says that's a false dilemma, cowardice vs. glory. Rather, it was combat shock. The troops were routed and panicked, to put it bluntly.

And,some troopers escaped Custer Hill and made a break for the river, only to get forced into Deep Ravine. That was where a less-than-glorious Last Stand occurred.

How much of the combat shock was Custer's fault, due to bad tactics, ignoring his scouts, etc.? Fox doesn't go into that detail, but I'd say around 25-33 percent myself. That said, this does remove the "Reno was drunk" or "Reno blew it" claims of Custer hagiagraphers from reality.

This is a great book; I've just given you the surface only of why.

This volume should be the primary book on the Battle of the Little Big Horn for serious historians whether or not one agrees with the author's conclusions. His theories concerning the progress of the battle are supported better than the best of the more generally accepted ones by archaeological evidence, contemporary accounts, and near-contemporary analyses.

This book should be purchased in tandem with Scott, Fox, Connor and Harmon, "Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn." For the story of Custer himself, I recommend Connell's "Son of the Morning Star", Stewart's "Custer's Luck", and Custer's own "My Life on the Plains" edited by Milo Quaife. The Scott, et al, book provides much more detail evidence supporting the author's theory of the battle, and combining it with the subject of this review, one might even consider them compelling. At any rate, they must be read and considered before coming to an opinion concerning the progress of the battle.

I was surprised by the negative reviews, particularly since this work is so well written, researched, and structured. If a reader doesn't like the author's conclusions, then all right, but the book at a minimum should receive four stars. Of all the books on Custer's annihilation, this book is the most heavily researched and supported by the evidence (in my opinion.) I would like one of the negative reviewers to produce a competitor so that evidence can be compared with evidence.

This book does not detract from the fighting qualities of the 7th Cavalry, but does not present the image of a heroic band of warriors, clustered around their leader, selling their lives as dearly as possible. Instead the image is more complex. The two wings of Custer's detachment maintained their discipline until L Company was decimated after C Company was defeated in Calhoun's Coulee/Ridge, Keogh's Company I was swept up on the ridge from south to north by the Indian rush, and E and F companies rallied to Last Stand Hill. There order was maintained until half were dead or wounded, and the able-bodied soldiers, mostly from Company E, charged down the hill into the Deep Ravine (the South Skirmish Line area) where all were killed. Immediately thereafter, the remainder of the men, probably all wounded, on Custer's Hill were overrun and killed.

The major bit of evidence still outstanding in support of this theory is that cutting of the Deep Ravine has so far failed to find the 28 bodies of the soldiers supposedly buried there in a cluster (see Scott, et al.) If these bodies are unearthed or another explanation is found, then this work can most probably be considered definitive. Personally, I await such evidence with baited breath.

At any rate, this book and the others I have listed above belong on the shelves of everyone interested in Custer, the Battle of the Little Big Horn, and Indian Wars in the West.

The book is an interesting read, however his conclusions that there was no "Last Stand" due to lack of archaeological evidence is simply wrong (a simple research on Indian casualties in '06 showed that 200 warriors had been killed on the battlefield alone, which couldn't be the case if Custer's men had actually shown little resistance and lasted over 2 hours). The fact that this fight occurred over 100 years ago, a visitor center built, monuments and markers placed, not to mention scores of relic hunters picking the hill clean for years (until 1984), and changes in the topography have contaminated any evidence or lack thereof. No conclusions are possible according to what was or what was not found on that hill. Certainly not enough to prove his theories.
He does rely heavily on Indian oral accounts. However, I was disturbed by his continued excuse to discount every account that contradicted his own conclusions, claiming that they were merely telling their white interviewers what white America wanted to hear. He seems to only accept their statements as valid as long as they coincide with his theories.
Would I recommend this book? While I agree it is interesting, it simply cannot be considered a reliable version of what took place on that hill in 1876. There are better books available.

The first book showed us Alexander's youth. The third book shows us Alexander's fall and demise.

The Sands of Ammon show us Alexander at the peak of his glory. Amazing conquests, astounding battle tactics and engaging characters make this book very enjoyable.

Events on this book confirm why Alexander is not only called "the Great", but why he is said to be the greatest military genius ever.

Manfredi continues to shine, strongly depicting Alexander in his rise as a somewhat conflicted young man well on his way to conquering the known world. The details concerning Memnon, the commander of the Persian army, were quite nice and really fleshed things out for me. I particularly liked the way the author dealt with the issue of the Gordian knot, showing Alexander's lack of patience for which he was quite well-known. This trilogy doesn't really stand out that much, as Manfredi is not taking a lot of liberties, but I suppose that's a good thing. Additionally, his balance of the events is admirable, as we do not feel particularly bogged down when the events slow (Alexander's convalescence before Issus, the winter in central Anatolia, the siege of Tyre). Additionally, in reading these books fairly intensively over the past week, I've dreamt of Alexander and his companions every night, which is certainly one of the goals of good historical fiction: to draw in the reader such that his/her unconscious mind is focused on the epoch the narrative takes place in. I was leaning towards four stars but this simple fact made me bump it up to five. Only Aztec, by Gary Jennings, and some Mary Renault novels have had this effect on me. In sum: well-balanced, anecdotal, sticking straight to the sources and vivid enough to make this reader's dreams come alive with the 4th century BC.

See my review of the first book for more in depth.


Basically, the series continues in this one, and surprisingly Manfredi manages to compress the events from Alexander's entry into Asia and the ensuing Battle of Granicus all the way onto Alexander's visit to the oracle at Siwa.

Manfredi is a master at condensing and easily keeping us on edge with even the more boring aspects of Alexander's journey. Frugal passages of little description and little psychological insight flow like butter while we are given plenty of lush description, great insight, and great prose to keep us satisfied. He's no Pressfield with his lush literature, and he's no McCullough with his intricate and detailed facts. He's Manfredi, and he's a master of his craft.

The story is an exciting ride from Granicus to Siwa, with plenty of insight into the mind of Memnon of Rhodes, his loving relationship with Barsine and his children, and though we only see him for a few chapters, those few chapters are so literate that we come to know him as much as we do Alexander.

The way Manfredi handles the grueling siege of Halicarnassus seems as if it lasts for hundreds pages, and we are shocked to see it done in far far less than that. The way he handles the Siege of Tyre makes us so sympathetic to Alexander that we hate and curse the Tyrians and are not at all phased by their massacre until we realize just what has been done.

I have just started on book III and with its increased size and thicker content to cover, I look forward to more of this journey.

Few authors can be better equipped to write about the history of ancient Greece and Rome than Valerio Massimo Manfredi. Professor of archaeology at the university of Milan, he has carried out many excavations and expeditions in the Mediterranean region. He has produced many factual books on historical matters, mainly military and has still found the time to write several novels and this is one of the best of them.

This book is the second of a triology about probably the greatest warrior and general who has ever lived, bearing in mind that Alexander died at an age when most men are only just starting to make their mark in life. Alexander is of course one of histories most colourful and well know character. Even people with little or not interest in ancient history will have heard of Alexander, a charismatic and larger than life figure.

In this second novel the author turns his attention to Alexander's Persian campaigns focussing on the battles between Alexander's forces and the rival general Memnon of Rhodes. Alexander knows in his heart that his superior troops will carry the battle but he can't help feeling admiration for his opponents courage.

The sudden death of Memnon from a mystery illness makes for an anticlimactic end to their battles but allows the conqueror to claim Barsine, the beautiful wife of Memnon. Alexander's next challenge is to face the Tyrian navy as they attempt to block his advance into Egypt . . .

I think this book picks up pace from the first volume.
It covers Alexander's campaigns through Anatolia ( his victories at Sardis , Miletis and Halicamassus) , his rivalry with Memnon of Rhodes , a mercenary working as a general for the Persians , his breaking through the Syrian gates , and the sieges of Tyre and Gaza , culminating in Alexander's romance with Memnon's beautiful widow , Barsine , his commissioning of the building of Alexandria and his visit to the Oasis at Siwa to consult the oracle of Ammon.
Quite an exciting tracing of Alexander's journies. My only quibble is that between his campaigns in Lebanon and the siege of Gaza , Alexander must have moved through the Land of Israel , and yet this is not mentioned in the Sands of Ammon.

The author, Mario Livio is head of the Science Division at the Space Telescope Science Institute. Livio is a recognized world expert on novae, supernovae, and gamma-ray bursts to compact astronomical objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. In this book Livio a Hubble Space Telescope scientist introduces us to cosmology as a perfectly balanced universe that is accelerating, along with a deep understanding of key concepts and theoretical ideas. Livio guides his reader through the fundamental questions about human craving for order and then connects it to the order in the creation of universe. He also explores the implications of the universal physical laws for mankind and introduces new findings. Livio in this book embarks on discovering the new revolution under way in cosmology. In one of the most starting discoveries in cosmology in the century, astronomers last year determined that the universe is flying apart at an ever-faster rate. This 'acceleration' has smashed the popular idea of a perfectly balanced 'beautiful' universe and kicked off what Scientific American has proclaimed as a new revolution in cosmology. In his book Livio introduces new findings and explores their astonishing implications. Was Einstein's 'greatest blunder'--his idea of a cosmological constant--a brilliant insight after all? Is there a mysterious kind of energy that fills 'empty' space? Must we abandon the long cherished view of a beautiful universe? If so, the accelerating universe may prove as traumatic a finding as was the heretical notion that the Earth was not the center of the universe to Galileo's inquisitors. Livio elaborates on searching for beauty in the realm of cosmological theories. The book provides and overview of cosmology as well as an aesthetic argument. Livio is concerned with abstract beauty, stemming partly from the simplicity and symmetry of physical laws that are 'symmetrical' in that they do not change with an object's position in space and time. Livio associates such beauty with the 'Copernican principle' that humans do not occupy a privileged place in the universe (much as Copernicus discerned that Earth is not at the center of the solar system). In other words, a beautiful cosmological theory would not depend on wild coincidences or contrivances. Here, Livio enters controversial territory. There has been growing debate in recent years, even beyond the physics community, about whether some aspects of the cosmos, such as the strength of gravity, are 'fine tuned' for life, an if so what this signifies. It's sometimes held to have religious meaning, but could also mean, among other things, that there are multiple universes, or that we define life too narrowly. However, Livio's emphasis on aesthertics does little to further this debate. As he himself acknowledges toward book's end, the 'eye of the beholder' plays some role in determining what's beautiful, even in cosmology. Moreover, there's no guarantee the universe will match anyone's criterion of attractiveness. And at times, Livio's preoccupation with aesthetics seems overwrought. One unwanted finding in cosmology affects him badly: 'I had a feeling in my stomach similar to the one I had in 1975, when I heard that somebody had carried a knife into the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and managed to gouge twelve deep slashes into Rembrandt's masterpiece The Night Watch.' This book has an interesting goal, to combine cosmology and matters more closely associated with art. Unfortunately, The Accelerating Universe is less compelling that this dual focus might suggest. This book helps the reader to think, understand, draw, and evaluate patterns of order and chaos that is a part of this universe with its physical laws.

Mario Livio, the scientific chief of the Hubble Space Telescope project, has written a book with a lot of potential. Considering the implications of recent discoveries that distant galaxies are farther away (and thus receding faster) than expected, with the concomitant suggestion of accelerating cosmic expansion, Livio ponders what this means for cosmological models. He concerns himself here with the junction of scientific theories and aesthetic concerns, the beauty and elegance that seem to have characterized some of the best theories (e.g. Newton's mechanics, Einsteinian general relativity). He suggests that 3 key criteria be used to evaluate the quality of a new cosmological theory-- symmetry, simplicity, and the Copernican principle (the "principle of mediocrity" or, generally, the idea that earth is nothing special in the universe).

Livio's book fails, unfortunately, for several reasons.

(1) One problem is technical: For all the emphasis that Livio puts on beauty and the relation of excellent scientific theories to great art, his book has oddly omitted the occasional figure with an example of such great art-- paintings,