Andyberschauer Palo Alto, CA, USA

There were some interesting elements to this book, but "Tragedy of Cuba" is misleading. Really more a rehash of the Elian Gonzalez story with linkage to the corruption of the Cuban exile community in Miami and the US government officials who needed their voting bloc

As a story, Cuba Confidential lacked consistency and continuity. Not a worthwhile read, unless you need an Elian refresher 10 years later, or otherwise haven't had enough of the Elian story to last a lifetime.

Many reviews I've seen of Mayflower criticize the author for (a) poor choice of book title, (b) shoddy history, (c) boring prose. The mixed reviews on this prevented me from purchasing the book for quite some time, until curiosity got the better of me.

While little can be said about whether a book is boring or not (to each his own), I'd advise those lamenting the book's title to start reading labels - it was very clear on the back cover (you didn't even need to crack the book) what this story was about. Similarly, to those self-proclaimed historians - get out of the pop-history aisle and start buying textbooks. Nowhere does Philbrick claim to be a professional historian; he is a writer and journalist, and having recently finished Mayflower I feel that his 2007 Pulitzer nomination was well-deserved... Mayflower is a crackin' good read.

In the prologue Philbrick makes it clear that he uses not only standard sources for his story, but also oral history & traditions from the Native Americans of the region in an attempt to tell a balanced story of the first settlers in Plymouth, their struggles, their successes and failures, and the ultimate unravelling of what had been delicately created through the bias and shortsightedness of subsequent generations culminating in "King Phillip's War". This bias and shortsightedness can be claimed by both sides, although Philbrick levels a larger portion at the English/Pilgrims/Puritans - choose your label - and, for my money, he backs it up nicely. What makes Puritan culpability more believable is that we see the same mistakes being made today by arguably better educated and more world-wise governments.

Mayflower isn't all roses. I would like to have seen Philbrick spend a little more time on some of the better known aspects of the Pilgrim national myth - the time in England and Holland, the first Thanksgiving, etc. - but the story doesn't suffer for it. In fact, I would have welcomed another 50 pages, or so, in such a well-written book.

All said, I found Mayflower to be a great read - exposing time-honored myths in a believable way that does not diminish the accomplishments of the passengers of that ship one iota. Removing the romantic patina that's built up over the years allows us to appreciate the story more - warts and all.

Maybe we can even learn something from this...

The principles involved in the predictioneering described in this book are those that any good consultant employs on a daily basis - walking a mile in the other guy's shoes (or at least understanding what makes the guy tick) in the context of your own objectives goes a long way, and is not done often enough by most people. The scenarios I face as a consultant may not be as complicated as those described by Mr Bueno de Mesquita, but the principles are the same.

"The Predictioneer's Game" is a mostly enjoyable read. I grew a little bored with two elements: 1) The chapter "Fun with the Past" describing the art of the possible in alternative histories was wearisome as the scenarios seem either simplistic, or seem to travel well-worn paths blazed by history's Monday morning quarterbacks, and 2) the author's (perhaps deserved) well-nourished ego on display. My favorite example of (2) was his reluctance to share a particular insight to Iraqi politics because "there is a good chance Iraqi or Iranian diplomats might read this, I leave it to them to work out how to solve their problem." This, at worst, implies the solution to al-Maliki's problem is highly detrimental to US interests, in which case why include this segment at all... The cynic would say the solution isn't necessarily detrimental to US interests; rather, the author is offering Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki his services - perhaps with an expectation to recoup the unrealized windfall from the author's examples of turning down blood money from African dictators - to right the ship of state.

I realize I'm being overly pessimistic here, and I shouldn't be. I rather enjoyed the book. Although "The Predictioneer's Game" appears, at the end of the day, to be little more than an advertisement for the consulting services offered by Mr Bueno de Mesquita's firm, it's a good one.

I picked up "Goddess of the Market" primarily because "The Fountainhead" is one of my favorite books. I have to say that I found Burns' work to be more interesting than any biography has a right to be.

Having read the 1-3 star reviews here, I'm left wondering if a reader's more extensive knowledge of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism, becomes a disservice in trying to read what one of these reviewers correctly labels a Reader's Digest version of Rand.

These reviewers are also correct that the work is not so much analysis and interpretation as a regurgitation of facts around Rand's life, relationships, and belief system. For the uninitiated such as myself, the regurgitation will naturally not come across as a repetition of well-known events. I can see that if the author is claiming "never before seen sources" as input to the work that there would be unmet expectations among the more knowledgeable, but for me the survey level was just fine. I take issue, though, with the complaints that the book (a) is laced with negative renderings of Rand and Objectivism, and (b) characterizes Objectivism as indistinguishable from "the right" or "the GOP". In this, perhaps because I'm less sensitive to it through distance from the philosophy, I thought Burns was extremely fair.

Were there negative statements about Rand and/or her behavior and/or her philosophy? Certainly, but there were also some very strongly worded positive statements. Did Burns imply/state that Objectivism influenced the development of "the Right"? Yes, but as a reader Burns also left me with the impression that Rand did not align her philosophy with others - she came across personally as extraordinarily consistent in her beliefs and behaviors through most of her actively influential years and, for example, refused to yield to the William F Buckleys of the new conservative right where she saw them going astray.

That said, the book did produce some lingering negatives for me. While Objectivism as a philosophy (based on my very limited understanding) advocates admirable overarching values, Rand and her tangible execution of Objectivism are portrayed as excessively pedantic, dogmatic and rigid. One reviewer doesn't argue with this portrayal; rather, says this is because she (and her inner circle) didn't truly live the principles of Objectivism. Here I believe we're splitting hairs - when any philosophy is used not as a set of guidelines; rather, as a user's manual for your life as Rand is portrayed as wanting her philosophy to be applied, it becomes difficult - perhaps unfairly - to separate the human error from the philosophical error. This is not unique to Objectivism. The difference from other philosophies, I suppose, is that Rand is shown to have been quick and merciless in culling the herd for these transgressions, allowing little dissent and tolerating no missteps. This doesn't appear to live up to the ideals of individualism to me; this seems like Orwell's 1984.

I leave "Goddess of the Market" impressed with Ayn Rand for her stalwart adherence to her personal convictions, and her energy and ambition in articulating her philosophy and extending its reach and influence through dogged determination. I also leave with the belief that Objectivism (or its tangible execution) sets the idealism bar too high for mere mortals to live their lives by in any meaningfully adherent way.

Descartes' Bones looks good on the shelf, and carries an intriguing subtitle. Unfortunately, the double story of the mystery of the mortal remains of one of history's most famous philosophers juxtaposed to the conflict between faith and reason spends too much time on the former and doesn't even scratch the surface of the latter.

I am not a student of philosophical evolution, and can't approach this book the way others here have. I do know a good story when I see one, though, and after picking up Descartes' Bones, I found myself continuing to look.

The mystery of the bones is moderately interesting placed firmly in the category of the strange things people do in the presence of celebrity. The linkage to the conflict between faith and reason (why I picked this up in the first place), though, doesn't leave me - the lay reader - saying 'wow', or even 'hmmm'. The final chapter, in fact, where Mr Shorto waxes philosophic on the currency of the faith/reason divide left me cold - unfortunate as it followed immediately on the best part of the mystery of the bones.

According to other reviews here, Mr Shorto's previous book on New Amsterdam was quite good. I recommend you try that rather than this.

Wordy, pedantic, familial soap-opera... yes, yes, and yes.

As much is made of Hawthorne's mastery of the English language, his style doesn't translate to the modern reader terribly well in The House of the Seven Gables. Many reviews here criticize the slow-moving story line, frequent digressions, and over-abundance of adjectives. Be that as it may, it's a wonderful period view of New England society. I, too, found the first half to be difficult going much of the way, but the detailed snapshot of life in the mid-19th century kept me going.

It's not a horror story, it's a time capsule.