I've read Reju before, and I had heard good things about this book. To put it bluntly, I was rather disappointed. It isn't that Reju gives bad advice I've read Reju before, and I had heard good things about this book. To put it bluntly, I was rather disappointed. It isn't that Reju gives bad advice here, it is that Reju gives simplistic advice. This is the kind of a book you give a new Christian, but it sells itself as the book to solve the problems endemic in the single populations of evangelical churches. If that is indeed the case then those populations have practically zero biblical teaching.
In essence, Reju discusses ten specific kinds of men a Christian woman shouldn't date. He fluffs out this set of instructions with story illustrations. Along the way, he gives basic advice like go to church, be pure, trust God. If there is one particular area in which the book shines it is in the latter thought. He dwells repeatedly upon the wisdom of waiting, and of trusting God, and of examining your own heart to see if your godly desire for marriage has become an ungodly idolization of it. He also has one section I've never seen in a book anywhere of most helpful practical advice on how to break up.
So, not bad advice, just basic advice. Stuff kids should be taught by their parents when they are in junior high. But, apparently, according to all the blurbs on the cover, this is revolutionary stuff.
What a delightful discovery this book was. I've read thousands of history books. Eckert wrote history in such a way that it seems a series of connecteWhat a delightful discovery this book was. I've read thousands of history books. Eckert wrote history in such a way that it seems a series of connected short stories ala Louis L'Amour. And he did a staggeringly good job of it. This particular work traces the settlement of Kentucky and Ohio, and the Indian wars in which they were birthed. Eckert does this via a focus on two individuals primarily, Simon Kenton on the American side, and Tecumsah on the Indian side. In the process we see religion, warfare, technology, torture, economics, geo-politics, geography, massacre, and nature. Most of all, we see the human interest side of it all. What a generation that was, a generation of struggle and loss and triumph.
I finished it this morning. As I sit here, the superlatives that come to mind are many. I will resist the urge to spill them across the page. I read fifty books, give or take, in a typical year. Suffice it to say, it is the best book I have read so far this year. Simply superb. ...more
I always cringe a little bit when I know I'm about to write an unflattering review for an author who is a good man. Such is the case here. In no way dI always cringe a little bit when I know I'm about to write an unflattering review for an author who is a good man. Such is the case here. In no way does this review reflect his wider ministry, but the fact is this is not a well written book. The wording is clunky. He includes enormous sections of quotations from diaries and histories, sections that would have been better summarized. There are some rather large (and telling) gaps in the life of the subject such as practically scream, "This is a puff piece biography rather than a serious one." In short, it is a badly written, badly designed biography.
...but it is still the best biography on Myron Cedarholm simply b/c I don't think another one exists. And since I wanted to learn more about the man I read it. I did learn more about the man, and about the various ministries that he led/birthed, and that knowledge gives me some insight into the DNA and interplay of various Minnosota and Wisconsin fundamentalist institutions. I also came to largely respect Myron Cedarholm, and appreciate his contribution to the work of Christ in the previous century.
The subject was a good man. The author is a good man. But this isn't a good book. ...more
This is not my first Holland book, but it the best one I've read, earning a rare five star review. I've spent many hours reading about the Roman EmpirThis is not my first Holland book, but it the best one I've read, earning a rare five star review. I've spent many hours reading about the Roman Empire in the last ten years. I desire to understand the times in which Jesus and the Early Church operated. Covering precisely the century in question, this work is clear, detailed, and beyond interesting, 'tis actually compelling. For example, the chapters on the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of Pompeii are the best I have read anywhere. We see the narrative arc, the political and religious leaders, the wars and civil wars. But we also see the common man, the way he lived and worked and amused himself. This is history as history should be written, no agenda, detailed and yet interesting, the big picture and the little one.
Wood's highly regarded history of the early Middle Ages period in Britain is a solid book. Any historian of that era must extrapolate and Wood's does Wood's highly regarded history of the early Middle Ages period in Britain is a solid book. Any historian of that era must extrapolate and Wood's does so, but not unfairly. He uses chronicles, hordes, wills, and other physical and documentary evidence to establish his story arc. Originally published some years ago, this edition has been updated to reflect recent discoveries and the things which flow from it. He really has only one flaw; the book is rather boring. Perhaps I would have read with more interest if I were English, I don't know, but my mind wandered constantly. Good book, probably deserves better than a three star rating. Comprehensive, sourced, thorough without being bogged down, just not very interesting. ...more
In the 90s, I used to haunt libraries like a ghost. Barnes and Noble too. I would read everything not nailed down because I love to read and because IIn the 90s, I used to haunt libraries like a ghost. Barnes and Noble too. I would read everything not nailed down because I love to read and because I was broke in those days. For years, I read Time, Newsweek, etc. while never purchasing a copy. In those years, I frequently came across some profile or other of General Electric and/or Jack Welch. He was the most respected CEO in America, and GE was the biggest company in America. Fast forward 25 years, and GE is a broken up shell of itself.
There's a story in there, and when I came across Cohan's book it intrigued me. I've read the stories of the downfall of MCI and Enron, amongst others, but those had fraud connections. GE, for the most part, did not. What happened?
Cohan answers the question methodically, in the best sense of the term. He walks us through the rise of GE, and the hidden land mines silently waiting beneath those glittering valuations. He is honest and fairminded in dealing with Welch and his immediate successor, Immelt. He did his homework and it shows in how he tells the story, skillfully weaving the various threads together or perhaps I should say showing us how they unraveled. Bad decisions? Some. Hubris? Of course. Failure to predict how badly some future unknown would impact them? Absolutely. Inability to respond flexibly? That too.
I find business books interesting, the historical ones, anyway. This book is interesting in the least, and even enlightening in spots. GE brought good things to life for generations, but in the end, it revealed the truth: Nothing man builds can survive long term, nothing, for everything human is faulty....more
This is, by far, the best Ambrose book I have read. He does a rather good job of setting time/place, and thus the magnitude of the accomplishment. AloThis is, by far, the best Ambrose book I have read. He does a rather good job of setting time/place, and thus the magnitude of the accomplishment. Along the way, his primary focus is Lewis, I assume b/c Lewis left the most written material behind. Indeed, this is almost a biography of Lewis. He does a better than good job of describing the voyage as it unrolled, in other words allowing the reader to discover things at the same pace as the men discovered them. We feel the sting of their defeats and savor the taste of their victories. We see the interplay of leadership, finances, weather, Indians, technology, politics, geopolitics, and the vision to shape an America from sea to shining sea.
Surprisingly (in a good sense), Ambrose doesn't end the story with the voyage. He follows Lewis through the national acclaim and personal glory down into the well of alcoholism, professional over-reach, depression, and finally suicide. And it is precisely this which makes the book so memorable. We see both the heights and the depths of one man's life told through the lens of one of the great voyages of discovery.
I read 50 books a year, give or take. About 1/10 of those stick with me. This one will stick. ...more
Scott Anderson's work is not bad, necessarily, but it is disconnected. His basic premise seems to be the early CIA mishandled the Cold War and the resScott Anderson's work is not bad, necessarily, but it is disconnected. His basic premise seems to be the early CIA mishandled the Cold War and the results hurt people and set us back in the fight against communism by decades. If that is his working hypothesis - and if it is isn't, then he fails to tell me what it is - he doesn't convince me. Looking through the lens of four specific CIA figures, none of whom seem to have much bearing on any of the others, he shows us how the Cold War developed. In the process, he does a decent job developing the deteriorating relationship between Russia and the USA, and a rather good job of showing us how the bones of the OSS became the skeleton of the CIA. What he fails to do is to convince us the CIA was a failure. I do not dispute they made mistakes. He examines them in some detail, calling on his readers to sit in judgment with him on what they should have done instead. Yet he absolutely fails to follow the chain of that reasoning. The CIA did A. A was bad. They should have done B. Ok, but if they had done B what would have happened then? He never discusses that, and it is that failure that is the primary failure of the work. By definition, the CIA in those years faced some awful choices. That is why they made some awful choices. They had no other choices to make. And what to us seems a particularly awful choice was almost certainly the least awful choice they could have made.
Logically, then, persuasively, the book is a failure. From a literary standpoint, it is fair to middling. Anderson is neither a bad writer nor a compelling one. And that same sentence summarizes the book itself. ...more
This is my first Maraniss book, and my first bio of Lombardi. Together, they became an interesting discovery. Maraniss writes clearly here, following This is my first Maraniss book, and my first bio of Lombardi. Together, they became an interesting discovery. Maraniss writes clearly here, following a mostly chronological order, but resisting the impulse to turn this into a dissection of football/football games. It isn't. Oh, he discusses both and in some detail, but this is absolutely a biography rather than a sporting history.
As a biography then this work stands or falls. And stand it does. Maraniss shows us Lombardi's neighborhood/family milieu, his education, and the influence of his church. He spends substantial time on his college career at Fordham, weaves in his marriage, and then relays his early struggles to find his footing. Then we see his coaching career, high school, West Point assistant, NFL assistant, the legendary years in Green Bay, and finally the sudden sunset in DC. Throughout, Lombardi's family plays an integral role in the book as it would have in his life.
Good biographies are measured on two things, in my mind. First, do they hold my interest? Second, do they give me a flavor of the age and a sense that I really know the man? Maraniss does both well here.
Sports biographies are not my usual forte. Glad I stepped out of my comfort zone for this one. ...more
