Timothy Dumas' account of the Martha Moxley murder must be read in light of the fact that it was published in 1998 which means that the research was done at least a couple of years prior to that time. Now that there has been an indictment of Michael Skakel and the trial has commenced the information in the book seems a bit dated. However, it is a good source of background information.

I found that often the author stretched his limited materials in order to make a book length work. He includes pages of information that are not relavent to the Moxley case but do give background information about the community of Greenwich.

Dumas spends much of his time focusing on Tommy Skakel and Ken Littleton as key suspects. He tells of the many tragic things that happened to many of the characters but just doesn't seem to tie the story together. The reader gets a good incite into the Greenwish and how the "other half" lives. But all and all I found this book very shallow.

When most readers are told that the book that received the award as virtually everybody's book of the year in 2001 is the story of a race horse it's hard to believe. And frankly I kept reading this book amazed at myself for being so intrigued by it. Laura Hillenbrand has created a view of America that most American's of the 21th Century don't have a clue about. She shows a side of the Depression and the world of horse trainers and jockeys that is valuable, informative and well worth reading for everyone interested in America's past.

For a society that assume entitledments in exchange for employement such as health care and retirement benefits and the right to join a union, the plight of the jockeys is "worth the price of admission." I'm sure the expression "by the seat of your pants" is older than the sport of racing, but that's how jockeys lived - virtually by the seat of their pants.

For animal lovers the treatment and love of the horse is heartwarming.

This is a great book and well worth reading. I've never been a horse racing fan but after reading SEABISCUIT I'm going to have a lot more respect of race horses and the entire sport. I only wish there were more like it.

I'm sure that VS Naipaul is entitled to the accolades that he has received for HALF A LIFE, not for this work but on the strength of his former works. I believe that sometimes the critics feel that the time of an author has arrived and they want to reward him for his achievements. Such is probably the case in HALF A LIFE. I have read A BEND IN THE RIVER and HALF A LIFE repeats many of the same themes. Once again the main character is having sex with his friends wife or lover. Once again there is a man who is displaced from his culture and his family and trying to create a life for himself in a new world. Naipaul is a fine writer and I find much of his prose beautifully written. Someday I'd love to take a class or be in a discussion group with a Naipual scholar who could trace many of his themes and characters. But this is one book that I really can't recommend.

Antwone Fisher bares his soul and in many ways the soul of a generation of people who grew up in foster homes in this wonderful book. In reading his story, people like me, who grew up with two parents in a loving home should be on their knees thanking God or who ever they believe in for their blessing. Having grown up in the same area of Cleveland as Fish, I relished in the memories of the old neighbor. But I also remember children talking at school about somebody being a "welfare child". I remember knowing children who were pushed from pillar to post. But until you read Fish's story you can't imagine what life was really like for him and thousands of other children growing up in foster homes.

I'm sure that there are loving and caring foster homes but many are not. The State does the best that they can, but it's a tough life. And the saddest part is the fact that at age 18 many of these children are left family-less and homeless just like Fish.

If there was one sin that Fish's mother committed it was her negligence in connecting him in some way with his father's family. I'm sure that she had her reasons, but it certainly would have changed his life.

This is really a "page turner" as one of the other reviewers commented. It's not an easy book to read and there were parts that almost brought tears to my eyes. But it's a side of life that exist.

I'd recommend this book to middle and upper class childen who complain about their miserable blight in life. Let them walk a mile in Fish's shoes and maybe they'll change their tune.

I just started the audio cassette of this book and was shocked and surprised to hear that Secretary of State John Hay worked for the assasinated Abraham Lincoln and JOHN Garfield??? When last I looked at my history books it was JAMES A GARFIELD that was assasinated in 1881. I don't know if this is an error in the original text of just on the part of the narrator. But it's a big blunder!!!!!!

I have read many best selling and award winning novels and found them wanting. One wonders sometimes - "Why did this book get an award." My question about OUT OF THE NIGHT.... is "Why didn't it get an award?" As a student of the South, this book gives an interesting look at the South of the 1950's and the changing social norms. Change is a major theme in the book and it would be interesting to discuss with a book club or with students the examples of change. The characters are well developed, although I thought some of the black characters were not as well developed. It would be interesting to do a comparison of Aunt Nelda and Mrs. Vance. Although they appear much different, they have much in common. And likewise between John and Little Luther. The book is magical and a wonderful read and would be excellent for a book club. It could give rise to great discussions and the edition I have has questions included. Don't start it unless you have time to read the whole thing. For those who liked TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD it's a must read.

The inability to unerstand the mind set and motivation of another generation is the challenge facing those who attempt to look at the past and particularly those who take a bottoms up approach to the study of history. Gerald Linderman faces this challenge in EMBATTLE COURAGE. Primarily through the use of letters and diaries, Linderman allows the reader to probe the psychological motivation of Civil War soilders and attempts to answer the question: what lead soldiers to fight.

As soldiers lost their connection to the civilian world and suffered from hunger, depravation and the cruelty of war, they abandoned earlier concepts of respect for the property of fallen comrades and opponents. Foraging gave way to looting and looting gave way to destruction of private property. Civilians who watched as spectators during early battles and were considered separate and apart from the military effort were eventualy encompassed into the term enemy. The discussion of civilian involvement and attacks on the civilian population reminded me of discussions during the Vitnam war of attacks by the United States military on civilian villages and the military justification that was provided.

Linderman admits in his introduction that he does not include the 180,000 blacks who fought in the Civil War. He does include women through the use of letters and reflections on thier support on the home front. According to Linderman, women strongly supported te concept of courage throughout the war even after soldiers had abandoned it. However, such statements as "Women in both North and South set themselves staunchly against desertina" (P. 91) seems extremely general and assumes that women were totally accepting of the hardships they were forced to endure. This depiction of their continuing opposition to desterions during the entire war depicts women as static and unaffected by the circumstances of life while one of the themes of the book is the changes of attitude and perception that men experienced. thelong casualty lists, service in hispitals, keeping family farms and plantations operating without fathers brothers and husbands surely affected the attitudes of women regarding desertations and continuation of the war, a point that Linderman fails to consider.

The Civil War soldier marched off to the unknown. He brought with him pieces ofhome, such as homemade quilts lovingly made by mothers, sisters and wives. He also brought with him their shared dreams and social values. Like the homemade quilts, those dreams and social values were left by the side of the road early in the war. The burden of carrying them in the face of combat and death was too heavy. The horrors of war and advances in the technology of fighting changed the soldiers and forced a separation between them and their communities, a relationship that has been open to much historical debate. The war changed the soldiers and they also changed the nation.Gone was the innocence of an earlier age. As America experienced its second revolution, it changeld like the soldiers who fought in it.

Bell Irvin Wiley set the standard for the conventional wisdom on the motivation of Civil War soldiers in his 1943 and 1953 works. Based on his research, Wiley concludes that men enlisted primarily out of ecnoomic need and because their communities pressured them. They stayed and founght largely for the sake of their friends. James W. McPherson, takes a different view. While not dismissing the findings of Wiley and Linderman, McPherson concludes that Union and Confederate soldiers possessed deeply held political and ideological convictions, which were the major reason they enlisted, remained in the ranks and fought. Confederate soldiers acted largely out of the convcition that there were defending rights and liberty and Union soldiers believed that self government and thier own freedom depended upon upholding the Republic against division and anarchy. Emphasizing duty and honor, McPherson finds a strong reliance on obligations of duty and pride.

Linderman looks first at the conception of war held by American soldiers and civilians during the Civil War and then at motivation. He focuses on vlunteers of 1861 and 1862, both North and South, and shows how the values held by these soldiers and their home communities evolved, changed and eventually bifurcated under the stresses of camp life, combat, military hospitals and physical depravation as the war progressed.

In Lnderman's views, the core motivation of Civil War soldiers was courage. However, courage must be seen in light of the companion viruties of manliness, Godliness, duty, honor and kinghtliness, all of which were shared with those on the home front. This concept of courage coupled with religious faith was so strong early in the war that soldiers believed that it protected them from physical harm. And indeed it did protect them as long as both sides held the same standard. Soldiers on opposing sides sometimes withheld fire on an officer or man who demonstrated extraordinary valor in combat. This early war, as described by Linderman, was a war in which men had no respect for sharp shooters and guerila fighters and withheld fire when men were answering to the call of nature. The cessaion of combat by virtue of an informal truce, trading between the lines and withholding firing on pickets was common.

Relying on the letters of literate middle class soldiers, it is interesting the speculate whether or not Linderman would have reached the same conclusions relying on the now silent voices of the generally illiterate lower classes.

For those who studied history in the 1960's. David Potter's IMPENDING CRISES brings back memories of a time when political history dominatd the study of America's past. For students who grew up in the age of new social history, Potter's work is a unique opportunity to broaden their perspective and experience the genre of another generation. A synthesis and a commentary, the book analyzes political developments in the United States From the outbreak of the Mexican War to the firing on Fort Sumter, a period that Potter sees as vital to an understanding of the causation of the American Civil War.

The cast of characters is composed of white males, be their politicians or the electorate. Female names are virtually absent from the index. Other than Dred Scott, the only other individual black person mentioned is Frederick Douglass, and it seems that Potter stretches his research to include Douglass as opposed to giving him agench. Potter's work, completed after his death by friend and associate, Don E. Fehrenbacher, is the story of the interaction of white men who made political and sometimes moral decisions and how those decisions influenced the American people.

One of the significant aspects of the book is how Potter weaves the interralated events into the pattern of socail turmoil that culminated in the Civil War, often attempting to put the reader intothe mental framework of 19th century America. Stressing slavery as the most significant contribution to the tensions leading to the war, Potter de-emphasizes the significance of Nat Turner's Rebellion and John Brown's Raid. However, he demonstrates their importanc when viewed in combination with other events and thier impact on contemporary thought. As Potter points out, "Historians customarily write about past events as if each one occurred in isolation, neatly encapsulated in a sealed container, or chapter." (P. 177) A work such as Potter's brings the student who has done indepth readings on events such as John Brown's Raid or Nat Turner's Rebellion into the reality of the larger spectrum of events.

In telling his story, Potter goes about his task ina meticulous manner, particularly when one considers the voluminous footnotes. In several instances he offers revisionist interpretations of certain characters. He shows John Brown's Raid as a futile act, a publicity stunt by contemporary standars. He attempts to rehabilitate the image of President James Buchanan, a man most historians have not held in high regard. He demonstrates the hypocrisy of many abolitionists and how Republicans maniputlated their platforms to win over Know Nothing and nativist voters. Lincoln is shown as the practical politician that he was. Piercing homes in the myths that have evolved during Lincoln's early career and campaign the presidency.

In offering his revisionists views however, I believe that Potter goes too far in his attempt to ggive a seemingly unbiased view of Justice Roger B. Taney. This is especially true when he states that "Taney's valuable contributions to American constitutional development remained unrecognized because of the Dred Scott decision." (P. 290) Granted Taney severed longer than any chief Justice other than John Marshall. In addition, he made favavorable contributions to America's economic development by reaching decisions that favored emerging industries. However, his opinions in Groves v. Slaughter (1844), Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) and Strader v. Graham (1850) were decidely proslavery, offering no protection to free blacks or the free states that opposed slavery.

Regarding the Dred Scott decision, Potter says "Probably no other major judicial decision in history affected the daily lives of so few people" (P. 290) While conceding in th next paragraph that the decision had indirect results, it is still difficult to understand Potter's view. Taney found that Blacks were not citizens and delineated bifurcated citizenship between federal and state government which would have significant ramifications in subsequent rulings of the court. For the first time, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a major piece of fderal legislation. For the first time, every justice of the Supreme Court wrote an opinion on a case, a decision that takes up 248 pages of the Supreme Court Reports. Had it not been for the Civil War, the Dred Scott decision would have dictated federal policy on slavery in the territories until the nation was able to end slavery or amend the constitution and yet potter downplays its importance. The evidence is clearl that the adoption of the 14th Amendment was an attempt by Congress to overturn the Dred Scott decision, but yet Potter feels that it did not affect the daily lives of individuals.

However, the emphasis of the book is on the history of political events and not legal history. All in all every page of Potter's work is extremely worthwhile. The discussions of the development of both political parties is "worth the price of admission."

Jay Winik titles his work on the American Civil War - April 1865 - The Month That Saved America. However, the book covers much more. It is in fact a comprehensive history of the war with insightful profiles of the major characters of the period. The title sounds like something a publisher picked up to make the title for intriguing.

This book was loaned to me by a former classmate. As a phd candidate in American History with an fairly comprehensive background in the war and Reconstruction, I anticipated reading a book that covered very familiar ground. However, I was pleasantly surprised. Winik does a very good job of sumarizing the final days of the war and putting them into a greater context while also providing the reader with background information. I was especially impressed with the information about the period of time between Lee's surrender and the actual secessation of the fighting. Everyone thinks that the war ended with Lee's surrender but there is much more to tell relating to the negotiations between Sherman and Johnston. Winik goes into some detail about the possibilities of a guerilla fighting after the close of the actual combat. I also found the discussion of Natan Bedford Forrest interesting. Contrary to many historians, Winik shows the Lincolns as a loving couple and as a result is much kinder to Mary Todd Lincoln than most.

As a graduate student, I have read many books about very specific instances in the war and reconstruction - so specific sometimes that you tend to forget the larger picture. Winik gives an excellent overview. If I were teaching a survey course on American History I think that I would make this book required reading.

I am a life long Clevelander and as a small child remember the newspaper articles and the discussions about the case. As an adult and a laywer I worked in and continue to work in court system and know many of the people in the book. And of course I am familiar with the courtrooms and locations talked about in the book. In the sense that Neff really captures the spirit of the times and the furor over the case in Cleveland I think that he does an excellent job, particularly in the background of some of the characters. He also gives a good view of the Sheppard family and lots of details on Sam, Marilyn and their relationship. However, I have major problems with the premise that Eberling committed the murder. To believe Neff, you still have to believe that Sam Sheppard layed on the sofa while someone came in and beat his wife to death and neither he nor his son work up. You also have to believe that Sam tangled with the killer once in the house and then goes down to the beach and tangles with the same killer who is hanging around.

As one of the other reviewers mentioned, Eberling was a known homosexual. Would he have sex with Marilyn and then kill her - a woman that was nice to him. It just doesn't jive. I felt that Neff was really stretching it when he talks about Eberling in the last chapter or so. Talk about hearsay on hearsay...
When Neff spoke at a book signing he talked about how Eberling rambled on and made little sense when he talked to him. He gives Eberling a lot more credibility in the book than he described in person.

I always knew that Sam "got around" with the ladies, but after reading of his many affairs, ones that Marilyn knew about it seems hard to believe that she continued to say with him. It was truly a strange marriage.

As a minor point, on page 122, Neff mentiones that former Mayor Harold Burton of Cleveland was elected to the senate and then went to the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of appointment by FDR. Burton was appointed by Harry Truman to the US Supreme Court.

All in all this book is a good read about the Sam Sheppard murder case. He gives some good insights but he didn't convince me. I will always believe that Sam was guilty and the book didn't convince me. Some people say it changed their minds. Maybe it did for them but not for me.

And as to the law suit filed by my friend Terry Gilbert, on behalf of Sam Reeese Sheppard, the statue of limitations had run. The case was over. Sam didn't seek any redress when he got out of jail and if there was a cause of action it belonged to Sam and died with him. How can the son come up at this late date and say that his father was wrongfully incarcerated. This is the reason that we have statues of limitation of cases.