MR

Yes, this has it flaws, but it is still a remarkable read. I am surprised to see what the negative reviews here on Amazon are saying, especially those who seem to be disapointed that is fiction. It is fiction, and has all the chracteristics of literary contemporary fiction (and that of course is where its beauty lies in its lyrical prose, anachronistic settings, and postmodern tone). Anybody who is looking to learn more about Lincoln should pick up any of the hundreds of wonderful biographies about the 16th president. But readers who want a book that explores the complex world of emotional resonance should read "Mr. Lincoln's Wars."

"Mr. Lincoln's Wars" is one of the most moving books I have read to date. It shows Lincoln and the world around him in its most metaphorical sense -- a world haunted by sadness, confusion, and the human will to persevere. The stories revolving around Lincoln are often sadly poignant, showing the president at his most introspective. The book is also complemented by stories that show ordinary people and thier relationships to the "idea" of Lincoln. These stories make for a stark contrast to the world of Lincoln that is presented to us -- showing us the humanity in all people. I suspect that detractors may be missing the point: "Mr. Lincoln's Wars" is not a book for "learning" something new about Abraham Lincoln, instead it is about seeing the humanity of the confusing world that we still live in.

I haven't written an Amazon review before, but I compelled due to my puzzlement over some of the recent reader's comments. In their defense, I suppose that anybody who is looking for a Lincoln biography will be disappointed. But this book so obviously does not purport to be biography, nor does it pretend to be anything other than contemporary literature. All readers of serious writing will recogonize the use of metaphor and allegory to tell the tale of the sad and brutal world that we inhabit. They will also recognize the obvious postmodernism (as I believe another Amazon reviewer put it) to take the book out of the historical, and into the contemporary. Yes, if you are someone looking for a biography of Lincoln or the Civil War, or an airplane read of historial fiction, then you will not like this book. (I believe that the description on the book makes it pretty clear.) However, if you read and appreciate contemporary literature, then you will be glad you spent the money and the time.

Readers should be aware of what they are getting into before reading this book. This book should not be considered at narrative history of the events on the Bounty. It is more like a collection of essays. The author does provide spot narration of some the events, though these are non-linear. The author must assume that that reader is already familiar with the characters and events.
There are extended 'analysis' or essays on a variety of associated topics: from naval discipline to 18th century plays about Capt. Cook.

OK that is not exactly what I was looking for and I now I seek another, more conventional history to plug in the gaps not include here.

There are many lovely passages in the book, though I found myself skipping over many of the sections I was not interested in.

Social theorists have tried many definitions of human nature: human beings are the animals that make tools, that laugh, that play. I have another: Human-beings are history-makers. We eternally make our present by looking backwards. We present ourselves by expressing a significant past. To know us in our history is to know who we are. -Greg Dening (Performances)

At 4:30 A.M. on April 28, 1789 a series of events began which has ever since held a grip on Western imagination. Fletcher Christian lead a mutiny against Captain William Bligh aboard HMS Bounty. The aftermath of this rebellion included: Bligh's remarkable 4,000 mile journey with 18 loyal crewmen in an open launch; the sinking of HMS Pandora, which had been sent out to arrest the mutineers, with a loss of 34 men, including 4 of the Bounty crew; and the establishment of a weird sort of tropical commune on Pitcairn's Island by Christian and eight other men along with the Tahitian women (and a few friends and progeny) who may or may not have been the precipitating cause of the whole fiasco. Eventually Bligh would return to sea, three of the mutineers would be returned to England and hanged and all but one of the men on Pitcairn's Island would be murdered or die of disease.

Now there's obviously enough material there to justify the boatload of Bounty books, plays and movies that have poured forth in a steady stream over the past two centuries, but what Professor Dening has uniquely done is to consider the uses to which the story has been put over those years. He makes the convincing argument that Captain Bligh, contrary to popular imagery, was not particularly abusive of his men. Indeed, the title of the book is reflective of Dening's position that Bligh was mostly despised for the harsh language he used in upbraiding men, not for any physical measures nor for the quality of his command in general. Having made his case, Dening moves on to a consideration of why our historical understanding of Bligh requires that he be seen as an ogre. If the "reality" is that he was a fairly mild captain for his time, why do we, looking backward, see him as the very embodiment of tyrannical authority? Why are Christian and his cohorts seen as heroes, virtual freedom fighters?

The book is wide ranging, learned, entertaining and thought provoking, but its best feature is the balance that Dening strikes between the effort to present the story of the Bounty as ethnographic history ("an attempt to represent the past as it was actually experienced") and the realization that:

a historical fact is not what happened but that small part of what has happened that has been used by historians to talk about, History is not the past: it is a consciousness of the past used for present purposes.

Everyone who has ever been subjected to a history course in the modern university is familiar with the obsession with primary sources, the Left dictatorship which controls academia insists that the "truth" is to be found in the pamphlets and diaries and letters of the unimportant and the obscure, rather than in the texts and speeches of the great who shaped our understanding of events. Dening, on the other hand, understands that there is a fundamental dichotomy between the way participants experienced historical events and their importance to the society as a whole. In a very real sense, it is simply not important whether Christ was the son of God, whether England ruled the colonies harshly, whether Southerners fought for slavery, whether FDR ended the Depression, whether Nixon subverted the Constitution and Clinton merely lied about sex--what matters is that this is how we perceive these events. In Denings' felicitous phrase: Illusions make things true; truth does not dispel illusion.

GRADE: A-

Dening provides an interesting history of the Bounty story - what makes it different is his focus on the disparity between fact and the fiction that developed surrounding the characters of Christian and Bligh.

I liked the book (I read in twice, in fact), and I was a little put-off by the other online reviews. Maybe the book is, as another reader put it, "scholarly" but I didn't view that as a negative. All books need not be written for the average Joe (and, incidentally, cliometrics can be found in any decent dictionary) - so what's the problem?

nice little book, I AM INTERSETED IN READING MORE ABOUT THIS TOWN ARCADIA AND THE AREA AROUND IT.

I HAD THE PLEASURE OF MEETING TONY BLOSSINGHAM AT THE BIG APPLE BAR IN ARCADIA MICHIGAN. WHAT A DELIGHTFUL YOUNG MAN! I READ THE BOOK IN 3 NIGHTS. LETS JUST SAY WHEN I CLOSED UP THE BAR AT NIGHT I WAS LOOKING OVER MY SHOULDER. THANKS FOR THE THRILL TONY. CAN'T WAIT FOR PART 2!! i MISS MI

I work with writers and artists on a daily basis and often see untalented people with larger than life dreams of success, but here is a modest writer from my home state of Michigan who is rewriting the standard for class and ability.

I first was made aware of Mr. Blossingham by an article in "The Great Lakes Pilot" that introduced him to the regional stage. To me it sounds like he truly enjoys the writing process and none of the baggage that most of my students are hoping for. (fame, money etc.)

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him, but I am proud to play my part in helping this unappreciated writer his due.

Buy the novel and you won't see Michigan the same way.

I like a woman who is honest. Manipulative is not honest; it's immature. Hard to imagine how a relationship could last that is based on such behavior.

I like women who take initiative.

I like women who return phone calls. If you do not return my call, I will not call again. When you don't, what I hear you saying is that you are not interested. I also like women who initiate phone calls themselves.

I like women who don't wait 24 hours to reply to an email. I also like women who don't avoid writing simply because it is during the weekend and don't want to appear to be unbusy at that time.

I like women who don't stop writing after four emails simply because I haven't asked them out yet. A woman who behaves like that is going to miss the love of her life.

I like well educated women. A woman who answers with a terse three line quickie suggests that she is inarticulate. That she artificially suppresses communication seems to be contradictory to one of the most foundational aspects of a successful relationship: open, honest communication.

The techniques this book recommends would quickly cause me to look elsewhere.

I like women who answer the questions I ask instead of ignoring them.

I like women who don't passively wait to be asked out. If you want to go out, ask. Fear of rejection? Now you understand what equality means. For both men and women, if we don't ask, the answer is automatically no.

I like women who are truly interested in equality in a relationship. That means not insisting on equality only when it suits them.

I like women who don't use double standards.

When I ask a woman for a date, she is my guest and I should pay. It is impolite for her to demand to pay half. If she wants to pay for something, she should do the asking. Then I'd be her guest. She should do half the asking if she really wants equality.

I like women who have a sense of humor. That doesn't mean women who exclusively expect to be entertained with my sense of humor, but rather those who are capable of creating humor themselves.

If you want a relationship, stop playing games.

This book helps to explain why an ever increasing percentage of women finish college, reach their 30th birthday, reach their 40th birthday without ever finding the right man for them.

The only real value I see to this book is that it helps me to weed out the women who rely upon such techniques.

This book should be entitled "How to Run off Anyone with an Ounce of Integrity" I am a successful, educated, and articulate single man who chooses not to date people at work (although it its an ethical and not at all a technical problem) because of my supervisory position. I do not like meeting women in bars and most of my friends are married so I tried online dating. Three times in a row, I e-mailed what appeared to be attractive and interesting women only to receive three line replies from 2 to 4 days after my E-mail. All three gave me their cell phone numbers but never returned my calls. When I politely asked why they did not call back or reply to E-mails, all three replied with "I am so sorry but I was really busy" all weekend yet still made it very clear they were still interested. Give me a break! No one is so busy that they can not take two minutes to reply to E-mail or call back on the phone. None of my friends would ever treat me this way! I had a hard time figuring out why this was. Maybe they thought I was a jerk but the tone of the replies did not indicate that and the easiest way to handle that would be no reply at all...it was just strange and I could not understand what was going on. Well, one of my best friends wives said that they were just following the "rules book" So, I decided to read it and indeed, they were. Problem is, by doing this, and without really knowing me, they treated me like crap and made me feel bad. Far from making me interested, I thought to myself; why would I want to date someone like this? I now know to avoid people who do this like the plague...Someone far wiser than these lame authors once said:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Interestingly, after I gave up on these three, they have all E-mailed me multiple times. Well, I guess I have gotten the last laugh...actually, its probably the online dating service who got the last laugh. I am still scratching my head trying to figure out why I paid them 20 bucks a month to get this kind of abuse!!!

I am noticing that all of the naysayers of this book are males who do not want to admit that the rules really do work. As a woman that has been in the dating scene for a while, I realize that this book really tells it like it is. If you want to get that quality man to commit to you and not get bored, you have to be hard to get. I would recommend this book to any woman that is trying out online dating.

I'll have to say that this book was very handy in my dating life...however, not for the way the authors intended. When I notice that a potential partner starts acting according to The Rules (i.e. never returning calls; insisting on lavish treatment; "acting" confident or involved in something I'm interested in, yet knows nothing about it; etc.), I never call back. Ever.

For example, on one occasion I saw a copy of "The Rules" in a date's domicile (I know I know, she broke a rule, but I was picking her up for a dinner date.) It hit me. She never returned messages (which I thought was rude) and acted rather aloof and "not herself." Because I was getting faked out, I faked a stomach cramp, went home, and never called her again. She kept calling my house for a while...thank goodness for Caller ID. She eventually gave up. She got to see how *we* like it. Perhaps I did her the greatest good to see how living by "the Law" cannot bring about the fruits of genuine "dating grace."

Seriously, life is too short to waste on people that need to follow a presubscribed list of "rules and regulations" to have a relationship. Any healthy relationship is predicated on honesty, trust, a desire to "not go too quickly" or get hurt, &c. If you're feeling lonely, unfulfilled, and self-conscious, do something healthy for yourself. Workout. Read. Take a class. Join a group. Attend church. Do *SOMETHING* to increase your self-worth...THEN begin dating. This is a harder and longer path...but it's got a better success rate than simply faking it. Following two faux-therapists' half-truths isn't a proper surrogate.

I'd like to say that the Rules is a great book for women. Women tend to obssess over men and this book helps you to focus on yourself instead of him. If you read the rules, they seem manipulative and anti-feminist, but when you actually do them, they help a woman to put herself first in her life. Yeah, yeah, you're saying, "Well, she should do that anyway". Yes, that's true, but so many women are good at their jobs, and independent in so many ways, but when it comes to men, they melt. They forget about their friends, and start waiting for HIM to call (if she likes him). I've been doing the Rules for one year. I am currently dating 3 men. They all know about each other, I don't lie. But it helps me to take the relationship slower. I wait to have sex, (currently not sleeping with anyone), but I'm getting to know all of them. I'm enjoying men for the first time, as friends, and don't feel the pressure of dating only one guy, telling him everything about my life, and telling him how much I like him. I'm still very much myself, but I don't constantly focus on how much I like him, I don't obsess over any of them, I'm happy when I see them because I don't have major expectations of them. I enjoy their company and who knows, I may really care for one of them. But there is no rush. They enjoy my company and tell me often. I'm having the time of my life. I feel no pressure when I am out with them, I am much more myself. I don't feel like I have to perform, and I don't have to have sex with anyone unless I feel I am ready. They have so much more respect for how I feel. They treat me so kindly as I do them. I don't feel angry toward them. When I wasn't doing the rules, I would expect them to be calling me everyday, and if I had sex with them I would feel totally used if they didn't tell me they loved me. Sue me. That's how I was, and I'll tell you, I know a whole lot of other women like that. The Rules are great,and they are very feminist. You must do them to get the benefits. If you only read them, you will never understand how it changes your behavior and your perspective toward men. You will only ridicule them as so many people do. Good luck and I thank those two wonderful women for helping so many kind, nice, sensitive women who only want the best for themselves and others.

I read this book a few years ago and I can honestly say it helped me tremendously. I'm a smart, take-charge type of woman but I was really letting guys walk all over me. As soon as I started following this book, I began to have much better relationships with men and now I am engaged. It's funny because my fiance describes ex-girlfriends of his who were pretty but "too eager" or whatever and they sound like the girl I was before figuring things out and reading the Rules. I really recommend it for any girl on the dating scene.

It pains me to say anything bad about a Peter Straub book. I have been a fan for nearly 20 years. Koko still rates as one of my all time favorite reads, bar none. Mystery & The Throat were sorely disappointing, but Hellfire Club promised a return to form. A return to the horror genre by my favorite author...well, what more could I ask for? Much, in retrospect. Mr X contains more ponderous, pretentious prose than any Straub novel to date. Descriptions of places, persons, and situations drag on ad nauseum. Even the names of characters are distractingly silly. Do yourself a favor, skip this palid, self- important attempt at a modern addition to Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos, and read the original.

Mr. X was my first Straub book sans Stephen King. I didn't know what to expect of his 'solo' work. I have been fairly glued to a handful of authors (King, Rice, Lumley and Steven Baxter), and was hoping that, at the very least, Straub could be a distraction during the lull between releases from my favorites. Wow! I'm glad I gave him a chance! Creative,thought provoking, frightening,surprising...I look forward to reading his entire body of work!

The Peter Straub acid test - you'll either love it, or hate it.

Ned Dunstan comes from a very peculiar family. Some of them see things that haven't yet happened. Others can teleport. Or, apparently, be in more than one place at a time. Their offspring are - well, sometimes not quite right. Occasionally they have to be buried out in the Back Forty. Ned has been haunted by an "Other" since his childhood, some shadowy figure who seeks him and those around him out to do grievous harm. And he seems to have a twin, who his mother never told him about...or does he?

Along with Ghost Story, this is Straub's best-written and most carefully plotted book. Also like Ghost Story, it requires tremendous patience to read. Straub writes like a Chinese puzzle box, and in highly convoluted form, presenting bits and pieces of his story in altered time frames and from different perspectives. His plot is half Poe's "William Wilson," half Lovecraft's "The Dunwich Horror." It is more sci-fi or fantasy than true horror, and in fact the award it won was the World Fantasy Award, which is most appropriate. It's tricky and clever, but really satisfies in the end if you simply pay attention.

Won't be everyone's cup of tea, but this description should help you decide whether or not it will be yours.

Elmore Leonard is the king of crime fiction. We know this because the covers of all his paperbacks say so, and it's so. Nelson DeMille, Ed McBain, Joseph Wambaugh, and others all have their points, but no one has consistently produced the level of crime fiction that Leonard has over the course of five decades now.

"Mr. Majestyk" isn't part of that legacy. It's a sturdy, muscle-minded, no-frills crime story that 100 other guys could have churned out in the 1970s, and many did. The idea of a peaceable loner coming up against dark criminal forces, only to be revealed as more formidable than any of his adversaries banked on, was old then and older now. Characterization is limited. The atmosphere is arid as a sun-baked arroyo. Most surprisingly for Leonard, the dialogue is long on brawn and short on brains. "Shut up, %**$^@#" is about the best the normally loquacious Leonard seems able, or interested, in presenting.

A good review elsewhere on this page notes the book was actually written after the movie, which became a Charles Bronson vehicle after Clint Eastwood dropped out. You can kind of smell that star positioning behind the unpromising premise of a melon farmer who runs into trouble while hiring migrant workers in the American Southwest. Dirty Harry wanted to show he wasn't all about gunning down minorities, and apparently Chuck Bronson felt the same (though this movie came out just before "Death Wish" did during the same year, 1974).

The novel doesn't shed much light in the migrant worker situation, or try to. Nor does it offer much insight into the Vietnam vet, Majestyk's previous line of work. It spends its short span setting up Majestyk's unenviable situation. Getting busted by the cops for defending his work site against a small-time hoodlum, he winds up crossing a much nastier and more powerful criminal during an escape attempt. Can he dispense with this threat and get his melons to market so he doesn't lose his farm?

Though these sort of novels typically shortchange the police to provide the non-cop hero with more of a lone-wolf situation, "Mr. Majestyk" overamps this by making the fuzz Barney-Fife-caliber hopeless. For example, their case against chief villain Frank Renda goes up in smoke when a cop who collared Renda is gunned down during the escape fight. Didn't the officer write a report, or was he just going to testify at the trial from memory? Instead, the police seem to throw up their hands and rely on using Mr. Majestyk for bait (and then fail to keep adequate track of him.)

Lucky for law and order, the bad guys in this one are even dumber. Frank Renda, we are told, is a hard guy "cool, patient, like someone who moved slowly, without wasted effort." Well, that is until Renda gets it in his head to waste Majestyk. Then there's a lot of wasted effort. Renda just won't quit, even as it becomes obvious that his obsession for killing the melon farmer who gave him some static is going to cost him another trip to the big house, perhaps the good graces of his mob overlords, and a good half-dozen of his best foot soldiers. Renda's no psycho killer; he's actually diversified. We are told his other affairs include a restaurant linen service and a string of massage parlors. But a few minutes with Majestyk turns him into a kamikaze. For a cold-blooded trigger man, Renda runs a bit too hot to be believed.

Majestyk doesn't emote much, which makes him a perfect Charles Bronson hero. Actually, Bronson apparently gave the character more charm in the movie version (I haven't seen it), which makes you wonder whether Leonard underwrote the character deliberately after losing Eastwood's services to construct his protagonist around and being at a loss as to what to replace him with. There's an attempt at presenting a romance, but why bother when we don't know much about what draws Majestyk and his migrant worker friend together except he likes the way she looks in a pair of jeans and she likes the fact he's a fair labor contractor. [Cue violins.]

The final Wild West-style showdown borrows from many better stories, and wraps itself up too neatly in less than ten pages. Leonard obviously didn't waste more than a month punching this out, getting it in place as a film tie-in that would support him while he toiled over more ambitious fare. It's a decent story for a bus trip, but "Majestyk" in name only. Nearly any other Leonard is a better bet.

This brief little story started off as a screenplay commissioned by Clint Eastwood. However, when Eastwood decided to make the uberdark High Plains Drifter instead, Leonard's script got sold to someone else and was turned into a movie starring Charles Bronson in 1974. Leonard subsequently novelized the screenplay, which accounts for its relative brevity. The story is pretty basic and, upon reflection, typically ridiculous. The title character is an Vietnam special forces vet who just wants to lead a quiet life farming melons. An altercation with a small-time hood lands him in jail with a notorious hitman, and things get sillier from there, as the he struggles to get back to his melons and get them in on time. There's a subplot involving a relationship with a Latina union organizer who seems really smart and together, that is, until she goes along with his harebrained plans. As always, Leonard's prose passes the time, but only barely.

Mr. Majestyk, an interesting name for a vietnam vet turned Melon Picker. Actually, forget Mr. Majestyk was ever in Vietnam, it isn't that critical to the story. If you knew that Mr. Majestyk was a hunter, then his hard nose attitude would still make sense.

All of that however, is an aside. Mr. Majestyk tells the story of a man that has escaped the world of Vietnam and attempts to raise a melon crop. He hires migrant workers to bring his crop in, including the love interest of the story, Nancy. And as others have put it, the job must get done.

However, where there is a job, organized is usually not far behind in Leonard's novels. Even in the American Southwest. For Mr. Majestyk, it starts with a two bit hood named Bobby Kopas that tries to muscle in his own crew to pick the product in Majestyk's fields. With a punch and a shot gun, Majestyk drives them off and starts the whole ball rolling.

After getting arrested for assaulting Kopas, Majestyk gets involved with a prison break with a Mafia Hitman named Frank Renda. The rest of the novel centers around Renda's planned revenge against Majestyk.

I just found out this morning, after having completed the novel, that Mr. Majestyk was also a movie in 1974. I'm not certain which came first - the novel or the movie. However, Leonard wrote them both. The movie stars Charles Bronson, who I can see playing Mr. Majestyk, but I think someone like Clint Eastwood, or a larger actor would have matched my image from the novel better.

Again, I digress. I guess I'm not surprised this book is also a movie. Unlike Leonard's more recent novels, Mr. Majestyk is much more action oriented than dialogue driven. That is kind of disappointing because Leonard's dialogue is the best. However, his action in this novel is some of the crispest he has written. I kept thinking to myself that I was surprised this hadn't already been turned into a movie as so many of Leonard's other novels had been - the surprise was on me I guess.

This novel is also reminiscent of an old western. The hero (Majestyk) is pursued by the villain (Renda). The law fails, so the hero must take matters into his own hand, and ultimately, there will be a big showdown at high noon. Okay, so they don't meet in the middle of town with a pair of six shooters, but its close.

I'd recommend this novel to anyone that enjoys Leonard and is looking for something a little different from him. A lot of the internal dialogue for the characters is missing in this one, but it is a quick read that tells a good story for some unlikely heros.

After finishing this book, I thought to myself "How can anyone ever be so calculated and cold towards love?"

The book did nothing for me except tell me that my old fashioned ways are just ok.

I read several books on finding a mate, and while this book had a few very useful tips, it's focus seemed to be more on bath-houses and "campy" humor. Save your money, here! 2 books to buy are: Husband Hunting Made Easy (Patrick Price) and Finding True Love in a Man-Eat-Man World (Craig Nelson). The Patrick Price book is #1 if you only want to buy one book. I used the information from these books, and have found my Mr. Right. Good luck!

What an awful book! Yes, it is witty in some places, but this is nothing more than some light weight humor that depicts an awfully bad light on being a gay man. Outland states that sex is a must by the second date and the overlying tone of the whole book is that sex is what it's all about. In a book about finding "Mr. Right," I'd expect something about relationships. Seriously, save your money - the Patrick Price book on relationships/gay marriage is much better, more amusing, and yet full of real world advice that might actually work without the stupd gimmicks and movie-principles Outland talks about.

Considering that neither Darcy ("As a child I was taught what was right;but I was not taught to correct my temper.") nor Elizabeth([Mr. Bennet's] "talents which, rightly used, might at least have preserved the respectability of his daughters..") thought their parents perfect, I would think that they would have made some effort in raising their daughters. Instead, they leave the girls in London (was there no one to stand as guardian/companion and live temporarily at magnificent Pemberley?!) while they are away for almost a year in Constantinople. Given Miss Darcy and Lydia's experiences with Wickham, I seriously doubt if Austen's Lizzy and Darcy would do such a thing.

I barely recognized Col. Fitzwilliam and Mrs. Gardiner. In a way I'm glad Lizzy and Darcy were away, I'd rather not find out how the author will treat them. These girls bear little resemblance to their parents.

There was no effort to imitate Regency English which was fine with me, but I thought the characters addressed each other too informally at times.

This may be a good read for some, but not my first choice for a good Pride and Prejudice sequel.

Overall, I enjoyed "Mr. Darcy's Daughters" when I was able to let go of my emotional attachment to "Pride and Prejudice." The story was a fun read and entertaining, but there is the inherent frustration of reading a book inspired by a classic novel. Most frustrating was the handling of Colonial Fitzwilliam and the Gardiners whose presence in the book is so prominent, I felt their characters should have more closely resembled Jane Austen's creation. Instead, in reading, it felt as though they were invented characters since they bore no likeness to the originals. Because of this, I was glad that Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth had no role in the book except for being mentioned now and then.

I appreciate that Elizabeth Aston stayed true to her own style of writing, however, the lack of formalities between the characters in terms of how they addressed one another or referred to other people really irked me and made the story a bit too modern.

In agreement with some of the other reviewers, it seemed highly unlikely that the Darcy and Elizabeth would have raised daughters that were silly and frivolous as the twins and santamonious as Letty. The Darcy sisters completely mimicked the Bennett sisters, save there was no Jane and two Lydias. The plot too was strongly parallel to Pride and Prejudice, which some readers might enjoy and some might not. I both enjoyed it and was irked by it at times.

In true Austen-style, Caroline Bingly, now Lady Warren and Lydia make their appearances and remain true to character, refreshing to read after the treatment of Fitzwilliam and the Gardiners.

All in all, of books inspired by great works of literature, this was a pretty enjoyable, fun read. I would recommend it to people who can make allowances and remember that this was not written by Jane Austen but by someone who admired her enough to provide other Austen fans a version as to what happens twenty years later.

While Mr Darcy's Daughters is not a classic in the Jane Austin tradition, it is a witty and well paced novel in it's own right. If your looking for a classic Austin read Austin. If your looking for a delightful lighthearted book that is well written and well paced than Mr. Darcy's Daughters is for you. No it's not Austin but it is not suppost to be. It is a wonderful book by a talented author who has great promise and should be judged on her own merit. Read Mr. Darcy's daughters because it is a good novel, don't read it because you want to climb into the pages of a Jane Auston novel. Auston is gone, few if any can match her talent, but Ms. Aston gives it a damn good shot.

This book was a compilation of anecdotes from 40 years of working in the White House. Although I found some stories to be humorous, I enjoyed very little of the book. Although the cute stories humanize our nations presidents, knocking down their "God like" image, I believe that there was no reason behind writing this book besides the fact that she could.
I found some stories interesting, and I even cracked a smile on a rare occasion, but for the most part, this was just a silly way for Ms. Thomas to get money for a whole lot of who cares. Maybe if I had grown up during the past 40 years she was referring to, I might appreciate it more, but for the younger reader, it offers very little in entertainment.

I loved reading about Helen and her interactions with the White House. Especially entertaining were her descriptions of the Gridiron dinners where she was often portraying first ladies in skits.

This was a fast read, fun and entertaining. However, it came as no surprise that Nixon had a dark humor, Reagan was always full of hot air and President Jr. and Sr. need to work on their command of the English language. What was great about the book was that it allowed us in to see a very human side of the working White House. I felt a part of the briefings and press conferences.

After reading the book, I could honestly say that I knew more about the personalities of each president. Just by the tidbits in this book, it seems as though Jimmy Carter and Gerry Ford were the most genuine. Bill Clinton was certainly the most entertaining and sadly, our current president, does not always make the best impression.

Lighthearted and jovial, Helen entertains us for all 240 pages.

Helen Thomas shares the lighter side of nine presidents and their wives with the people whom do not know them so well. She re-tells jokes and conversations held between herself and nine presidents in her time of being "dean of the White House Press Corps".
She implies that not all presidents are alike. Every one of them is different. While the chapter on Kennedy was quite humorous, that of Reagan's was less humorous and more about how he handled the press. There are many examples of humor in chpt 1. On page 19 it tells of how on the way to one of the campaign trials, Kennedy had to wear a dark blue suit with brown shoes because black shoes were not packed. After finding out that nobody had an extra pair to lend him and he would have to attend like so, he took it very lightly. He laughed when made a joke out of and found it quite amusing himself.
Helen Thomas also implies that no matter how serious the job of being president is, they are just regular human beings. Just because they are president does not mean they do not have characteristics of an average man. By giving each and every president a sense of humor with their own little edge added to it, we see that they are regular people who like to laugh and make others laugh here and there. It makes the president's more familiar and relatable to the average man. Everyone can appreciate a little humor and by showing this average man quality in every one of these nine presidents the people find them to be more real, more life-like. Humans are the only animals who can be humorous or have a sense of humor. Dogs cannot laugh at your jokes, and kangaroos do not tell them. Therefore when this trait is put in the spotlight as the defining traits of people whom appear to be larger than life, it humanizes them.
The author's thesis can be argued. One could easily argue that the presidents are nothing like an average human being and they deserve to be held up to a high standard, and are to be considered the very highest of flawless humans. A big deal was made of President Clinton's flaw, therefore showing that as average people, we have much higher standards for presidents and do not see them as being capable of having characteristics of our friends. Therefore it can be argued that Presidents are not like the rest of us.It can also be argued that maybe the humor that is portrayed is a tool in trying to convince the people that they are their friends. Like the method of campaigning, "I am just like you", they might be trying to make themselves seem to have the same characteristics as the people, but in reality do not. It may be a ploy for support.
I would recommend this book for the humor and the side of a president's life that we as people critiquing the government hardly ever see. The book was fast paced and very entertaining.