I Am Pilgrim, Hayes - B -

                                               This novel is a thriller that received very, very complimentary reviews. The author is a well-known screenwriter and this is his first book.  'Pilgrim' is the code name of a US agent of extraordinary skill who apprehends a committed Saudi terrorist. Although it qualifies as a fun read, I'm not sure it is a must read. My disappointment stems from the length (613 pps.) and the fact that the author's diversions are frequent, lengthy and in my opinion, unnecessary.

Absolute Monarchs: A History Of The Papacy, Norwich - B -

                                               John Julius Norwich is one of those great writers of wonderful histories. I've read a number of his books and thank David Brewer for recommending this one to me. In his introduction, the author states that his "task has been simply to look at what is perhaps the most astonishing social, political, and spiritual institution ever created and to give as honest, as objective, and as accurate an account of it as I possibly can."  There is little actual history to go on in the early centuries. For instance, if Peter was a rock upon which to build a church, there's no evidence of anything of the sort.  The first real mover and shaker in the church was Constantine the Great who made Christianity official in the early 4th century.  A century and a half later, by the time of Leo the Great, all temporal power had passed east. A vandalized Rome had but the Papacy left.  Another century on, Gregory the Great was able to consolidate temporal and spiritual, affording the Church the opportunity to survive and prosper as the principal institution in the diminished west.
                                               Early in the 7th century, Christianity was sundered. "The lands which had seen the origins of Christianity were all lost, never to be properly recovered. The eastern empire was hideously maimed.  Perhaps, ..it was Mohammed who made Charlemagne possible." Charles Martel stopped the Arab invasion at Tours in France in 732. It would take another 7 centuries before they were evicted from Spain. The crowning, as Emperor, of Charlemagne by Leo III on Christmas day in 800 is one of the most significant events in European history. The west once again had an Emperor - and he had been crowned by the Pope. Soon thereafter, Charles's empire withered, but the Papacy prospered.  By the turn of the millennium, a sequence of popes in loose partnership with the Holy Roman Emperors ( neither holy nor Roman, per Voltaire) expanded Christianity to Hungary, Poland and northern Germany.  Unfortunately for a united Christendom, the east and west sanctioned  the final Great Schism in 1054. Yet in the west, the Papacy was supreme in matters temporal and spiritual. In 1095, Urban II called for the Papacy's great foreign policy adventure in the middle East, the chance to save the Holy Lands from the infidel Saracens - the First Crusade. "On July 15, 1099, amid scenes of hideous carnage, the soldiers of Christ battered their way into Jerusalem, where they slaughtered all the Muslims in the city and burned all the Jews alive in the main synagogue." Thus, began Europe's two century dalliance in the Middle East.
                                                The early centuries of the millennium were dominated by a test of wills, the interminable battle for titular control of Europe between the popes and the emperors. Endlessly, the German emperors would travel to Italy to supplicate themselves, to conquer, to dominate and select popes. The source of much of the conflict was investiture: the right to appoint bishops and abbots. This struggle was over power and wealth and would manifest itself in different places for a very long time.  It led to the seven decade Avignon papacy in the 14th century.  The next century brought the Renaissance, the loss of Constantinople, the Sistine Chapel, the Spanish Inquisition and the division of the New World between Spain and Portugal.  The Reformation led by Martin Luther in 1517 further diminished the world of Roman Catholicism and led to a century and-a-half of war, now with religion as a disruptive cause. The Enlightenment opened the Church up to significant challenges, and it was followed by the severe anti-clericalism of the French Revolution and Napoleon's attempts to end the Papal States.
                                                 The Pope's role as temporal ruler was finally ended in 1871, hopefully putting behind the Holy See its history of war, dynastic intrigue, deception and conduct wholly unbecoming to its stated mission as Christ's vicar on earth.  The 20th century opened and closed with two superb modern Popes. Leo XIII tried to find and articulate a role for the Church as a standard bearer for the common man worn out by the industrial revolution, and John Paul II, the first Polish pontiff, stood firm in the battle against communism.
                                               All in all, this is a good read. I found it somewhat surprising that certain events of consequence, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ending the Thirty Years War or the Turks reaching the gates of Vienna are not mentioned as part of the background to this history. But, perhaps with hundreds of popes and endless fighting in Italy, there is not room for too much of the bigger picture.

Money: The Unauthorized Biography, Martin - Inc.

                                               The mission of the author is to disprove the generally accepted theory that the concept of money evolved as a replacement for barter systems, and that it initially used commodities, such as silver and gold, for coinage. "Currency is not money. Money is the system of credit account and their clearing that currency represents."  The coins invented in the 6th century BC simply represented the agreed upon system of valuation. The magic was in agreeing on a value and adopting it into everyday life.  The Romans had a fully sophisticated, almost modern financial system that succumbed when they did. The concept of universal economic value does need governments to provide the skeletons to hold the systems in place.  In essence, "money is a social technology - a set of ideas and practices for organizing society". In the end, I was once again unable to complete a book with economics at i's heart.  Perhaps John Lennon sang all that we need to know: "that's what I waaaant".

In The Wolf's Mouth, Foulds - C +

                                               This novel came to my attention because it was highly praised by reviewers. It is the story of an Englishman, an American of Italian descent, and a Sicilian-American whose paths all cross in Sicily after  the liberation in 1943.  It is beautifully written and extraordinarily effective depicting the random violence of war.  But there is no real narrative, no particular beginning and ending, just a well-written novel.

The Silkworm, Galbraith - B

                                               I'm not sure why I fell for the second in the new series about Cormoran Strike,  J.K. Rowling's rather odd private detective.  In this one, we delve into the publishing world and the gruesome end of a crazed writer. He is 'done in' in a manner set forth in his as of yet unpublished, and obviously final book.  I'm not sure what it is about Strike, but he is not as appealing or interesting as most of the usual British investigators, public or private.  Here, he once again out foxes the police and applies some of his eccentric genius in what I have to admit is a rousing finish. The Times reviewer  (a fellow bestselling author) suggests that the series could be as successful as some of the big ones in the UK - but, I have my doubts

Ring Of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I, Watson - B +

                                            Returning to the study of  Europe in the early 20th century, one is struck by the foolhardy willingness with which monarchs, parliamentarians, statesmen, diplomats all considered all out war as a viable national policy. Here we look at 'the great seminal catastrophe'  from the perspective of the two major Central Powers. Stung by the Serbs, A-H felt war was the appropriate response, the Russians were all in in their support for the Serbs, the Germans equivocated and, very quickly, the lights went out.  In both empires, the war was considered defensive, started by the Russians and thus, a source of solidarity and determined nationalism.  We know that the Germans had a plan and they almost succeeded in the west and were deft enough to win in the east. Not so the Hapsburg armies. The Serbs repulsed them in less than a week and the Russians routed them within a month. Before the Germans turned the tide at Tannenberg, the Russians had raped, pillaged and plundered their way across East Prussia and Galicia in a manner that presaged the events of a generation later. Indeed, the author states that, between the Russians and the internecine bloodletting amongst the incredibly diverse races in the Hapsburg Crown lands, the 'bloodlands' started on this, and not the later, Eastern front.  Jews and ethnic Germans were particularly abused in the attempt to Russify the newly captured lands. "The Tsarist army's invasions in the east....offer the closest link between the the campaigns of 1914 and the genocidal horrors of the mid-twentieth century." The refugee crises that followed had differing consequences. The Germans welcomed their East Prussian neighbors and strengthened their resolve.  The Austrians deplored the hundreds of thousands Galician Jews and Ukrainians, felt put upon by their arrival and were angered that their breadbasket had been destroyed - not a positive or constructive civic response.  As the war progressed, though, it was the British who assumed the mantle of the archenemy in Germany. The blockade was, per the international rules of the era, illegal. Thus Britain's 'starvation war' grew into what the Germans were fighting.  As the war wore on, the Central powers knew they were over-matched and Germany militarized its society in order to find a strategy of survival.  Food shortages led to widespread starvation and a collapse of civic order in both empires. Then in early 1917, the Germans made the decision that guaranteed the loss of the war - they authorized unrestricted submarine warfare - and assured the US would join the Entente.  The irony of the timing of their decision is that the British were nearly bankrupt, the French as spent as they were, and most importantly, the Russians were a month away from removing the Tsar. The eventual collapse of Tsarist Russia, followed by the Bolshevik plea for peace offered Germany a chance to win prior to the American arrival changing the balance of forces. They shot their load in 1918, failed, and pretty much fell apart.  Let me set forth some of Watson's closing thoughts. "The First World War was a catastrophe for central and eastern Europe. The new republics that replaced the old,  discredited empires were themselves undermined by the war's bitter legacy. Impoverished, insecure and frequently with large, resentful minorities, most proved unstable. War had rent the fabric of their multi-ethnic societies and disastrously exacerbated racial divisions, bequeathing lasting antagonisms above all against older Jewish and new German minorities. Within a decade, there was little left of Wilson's new democratic order, for most of the east had fallen under the rule of autocratic strongmen."
                                                 As most of my reading on this topic for the past half century has been from the British or Entente perspective, this book has been an eye-opener.  It delves deeply into what was happening, what was thought and how the war was managed by the two key central powers.  Thus, I commend it to someone seeking to round out their understanding of the Great War. However, as good as this book is, I found that its lack of attention to the goings on on the fronts to be a minus.The author is writing about matters from the perspective of the two Central powers, but assumes a vast knowledge of military history by his readers.  I'd vote for some more background on the actual fighting itself.

The Wrong Enemy; America In Afghanistan, 2001-2014, Gall - B

                                               Gall is a NY Times reporter, the daughter of a British journalist, who covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and a lifelong supporter of the Afghanis. It is my belief, after over forty years of reading books by Times reporters, that they write the best first drafts of history (see Karnow, Halbertsam, Sheehan, Friedman etc.)  Gall makes it clear in the prologue - and this is no surprise to anyone - that it is Pakistan that has taken our money, played a nefarious game, supported Islamic terrorism and is the "right" enemy.  We ventured into the 'graveyard of empires' just after 9/11, as the Taliban had sheltered and nurtured Al Qaeda. Within two months, both were vanquished.  Many moved to Pakistan, where they prospered, particularly after a Pakistan election in 2002 empowered the religious right. Due to Pakistan's historic strategic interest in controlling Afghanistan and  shared tribal (Pashtun) connections, the north-west provinces of Pakistan became a staging area for the Taliban's eventual return home. Both the military and the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) paid lip service to America's interests, while supporting the Taliban.  The Taliban resurgence in southern Afghanistan was met with a NATO response that kept them at bay but began to alienate the countryside. Errors leading to civilian casualties in the air war caused endless distress.  As the Taliban strengthened in Afghanistan, they exerted their power back across the border in the tribal areas, virtually replacing the Pakistan government. The Karzai led government and NATO could not staunch the Taliban in Afghanistan. A resurgent Taliban was ready to capture Kandahar by 2010, leading to  Obama's surge of an additional 33,000 US troops. Once again, the Taliban were routed. The author feels that the Taliban, Pakistan's proxies, are down but not out. She feels that with the US and NATO leaving,  they will reprise their success in Afghanistan.   She is of the school that says we are leaving too early.
                                             As good as this first draft is, it lacks perspective and background. It never really explains the 'whys' behind the success of the Taliban. They overcame the mujahideen, who had worn out the Soviets, but there is scant information to explain how they wound up governing the country. The US's strategic plan is also skipped over. Perhaps we didn't have one. We went to defeat Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. Why did we stay after they were defeated in 2001-2?  I'm not sure I remember and there's no elaboration here.  Indeed, the author sort of flash-forwards  half a dozen years at one point. Of perhaps greatest importance, why did we funnel over $25B to Pakistan to be our ally in the GWOT?  What has that accomplished?  Gall points out in closing that Pakistan is a major exporter of terror.  The British, I believe, tried to invade Afghanistan and could not.  The Soviets were embroiled there for a decade and failed. We have been there for almost a decade and a half. The sobriquet 'graveyard of empires' seems appropriate to me.

The Final Silence, Neville - B

                                             This is the fourth Belfast Novel featuring Jack Lennon and like its predecessors, it screams dishonesty, violence, betrayal, deceit, indifference, and a dark and dreary background. It's not just that the weather is rotten, it's that hundreds of years of conflict can add up to a community as bad as the weather. Lennon survives, manages to get his daughter away from his insidious in-laws, and has a shot at getting a disability pension. I just saw an interview with Neville, who is reasonably young and committed to staying in Belfast. So, there will be more.

The Burning Room, Connelly - B +

                                               This is the 21st book in the Harry Bosch series. What can you say?  Harry gets better with age. Connelly is a master. I believe this series is recognized nationally as one of the best out there. The fact that this was published on  Monday, Nov. 3rd points to it as a significant reason for the very recent settlement between Amazon and the Hachette Group.  Harry is teamed with a young Mexican-American woman who has recently been assigned to the cold case unit. They are assigned a murder case where the victim just died, even though he was shot ten years ago. Lucy wrangles the addition of a twenty-one year old arson/murder/robbery on to their plate and they solve the two cases concurrently. There is the usual wonderful background information on the City of Angels and its geography. The only unsettling thing is that Harry is very, very close to the end of the line with the LAPD. It's going to take some creativity to keep this going

Invisible City, Dahl - B +

                                              This is the first book in an intended series about Rebekah Roberts, a cub reporter for the mythic NY Tribune, a flat-out distasteful tabloid. Her back story is bit odd.  Her mother is a Hasidic Jew who had a fling with Rebekah's religious, albeit Christian, dad, gave birth and left to return to her people. Rebekah is a recent grad of the University of Central Florida journalism school, a stringer for the paper, and a young resident of the up and coming Gowanus neighborhood of Brooklyn. She is very conflicted, but primarily angry, about her mother.  She is assigned to a story about the murder of a young Hasidic woman and the novel turns into a searing indictment of the Hasidic community.  If half of the story is true, I'm embarrassed for the City for giving them so much leeway and appalled that such a community can prosper in this country. They are allowed a tremendous amount of autonomy because of their political clout. That autonomy extends to their murder victims not requiring autopsies. Their children do not stay in school through the minimal age required by law. Their medieval family practices and structures are apparently accepted in Family Court. Divorcing parents who leave the community aren't allowed visitation because it would interfere with the child's religious training. They utilize a self-policing vigilante system. Most appalling is that they treat their woman no better than the Wahhabi's in Saudi Arabia. Their rationale is that they must remain a strong, self-reliant community after what happened in Europe seventy years ago. The plot is pretty good, although I thought it slipped in the end. I'm looking forward to the next few.

The Rule of Nobody: Saving America From Dead Laws and Broken Government, Howard - B

                                               This is a fascinating, brief (only 183 pages) book about how our country's love for the rule of law has made our society much, much weaker than it should be.  The message is that government ( at all levels) does not work and is horribly inefficient in almost everything it does - the proverbial law of unintended consequences. Howard is a noted lawyer, commentator, and author who I saw on Fareed Zakaria's GPS show a few months ago. I believe the book is apolitical. His enemy is incompetence and he clearly states that an efficient government need not offend either the right or the left. His first example is the Goethals Bridge connecting Staten Island to New Jersey. The Port Authority concluded that the best way to modernize the Bridge is to raise its roadbed, thus allowing SuperPanaMax tankers to pass under and keep the Port of Newark competitive.  Many years later, nothing has happened because of the assessment process. He points out that since the approach roads would be the same and there is no increase in traffic, perhaps environmental impacts could be fast-tracked. Not in modern America, because we have endless laws that prescribe how things must be. There must be an environmental study, and in that study, time was spent on whether it was a good thing for the Port to be competitive. After all, this might lead to more traffic in Newark. Also, it took a year to complete the study of the project's impact on historic buildings within a ten mile radius.  Western Staten Island is industrial and there isn't a historic building anywhere near, but there are a lot in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Other examples of rule governed policies are: a cafeteria worker fired from a school for feeding a hungry child whose pass had expired, a lifeguard fired for saving a life after he crossed a beach boundary line when he should have called 911, a fireman prevented from saving a drowning man by his boss, because he did not have the proper certification, and on and on endlessly, until you don't know whether to laugh or cry. On a larger level, he tells the story of the cotton subsidies for farmers put in in 1933. They were part of staving off the Great Depression. Today we spend $2.5B on cotton subsidies and the WTO condemned us and slapped sanctions on goods sent to Brazil. Brazil had initiated the objections about our subsidies. Our Congress would not eliminate the subsidies and was pained to see innocent bystander industries punished because of their exports. So, we solved the problem by sending $147M annually to Brazil's cotton farmers. His suggestion is that we need less reliance on rules to be followed and more focus on outcomes.  He provides some great examples in the area of nursing homes. America has so many rules that homes will wake people from a sound sleep in order to comply with eating time requirements or place comatose a patient in play groups in order to comply with play ratios. In Australia, the industry has been revolutionized by using outcome based rules.  They simply require that people be taken care of humanely and with consideration. There's a reasonably long section on government philosophy and a suggested list of constitutional amendments. As I think we all know, we could figure this out if we left the politicians out of it. That is not likely because only legislators can change the Constitution or anything else in the good ole USA.