Product Description

Product Description
`The picture which Miss Miller paints of Henry as a ruthless realist throughout his reign is more convincing than Pollard's image of a political innocent or the older Catholic historians' hypothesis of an evil genius or the now discredited explanation of a degeneration brought about by lascivious living. In every sense he remains, as Churchill christened him, "an enormous man" and this scholarly study helps us to understand why.' G. R. Batho, University of Durham, for the Times Higher Education Supplement `This book is essential reading for specialists and will be a welcome addition to undergraduate reading lists.' Rosemary O'Day, British Book News `This book provides an invaluable foundation for the further study of a major topic which is only beginning to emerge from several decades of scholarly neglect.' Times Literary Supplement What did the King expect from his nobility? How generously did he reward service to the crown? What, on the other hand, was the attitude of the peerage to the monarchy? How important for noblemen was attendance in war and in such key areas of political activity as the court, council and parliament?In addressing these and many other questions, this book provides a fresh and vivid account of this central aspect of Tudor government. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Enjoyable, Reasonably Well Researched Account of Henry VIII and his Nobles
While I did not love this book, it is well-researched and makes a solid contribution to a relatively under-researched area of Tudor history. Given the extent of the shadowy way in which Henry VII came to the thrown influenced Henry VII and Henry VIII's actions, you would think there would be more books written on Henry VIII's relationship with his nobles.
This book is relatively bland but it gives real insight in to the pressures of faction politics in HVIII's court, discussing how some nobles refused to participate in the trial of Anne Boleyn, how Henry VIII's succesful "judicial murder" of Buckingham cowed the nobles and encouraged Henry in his other outrageously tyrannical prosecution of nobles, and how some nobles would be complicit in these actions since they occasionally benefited if the victim's land was divided amongst the jurors.

Good source on Henry's manipulation of the aristocracy
Whatever his personal and political faults, Henry VIIIwas astute in the art of government, weaving a network around the throne, and around the dynasty he was setting out to create, of old aristocratic families and newly created noblemen. By examining the way in which the king selected "new men," created new titles, promoted existing peers, and saw to it that the extinction of a title was always to his own advantage, Miller shows how Henry's attitudes, policies, and use of patronage reflected his dynastic insecurities. ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
In 1935, Lawrence Durrell, a young Englishman living on Corfu, wrote enthusiastically to a middle-aged Brooklynite - Henry Miller - of his just published novel "Tropic of Cancer". Miller felt that he had found his ideal reader and responded, thus beginning a correspondence that lasted 45 years. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Two great writers in a lifelong epistolary friendship...
It is well-known that Lawrence Durrell and Henry Miller became friends after Durrell wrote a letter to Miller in Paris, praising the latter's 'Tropic of Cancer' when it was still banned both in Britain and the UnitedStates.What devolved from this sincere letter of praise is shown in thisvolume, a successor to the 'Durrell-Miller Letters' of thirty years ago. Of necessity more complete than its predecessor, the 'Durrell-MillerLetters: 1935-80' tells a story in its own right of the lives of two greatfriends, who met over a book and stayed the course for the next forty-fiveyears.

In these pages we find Durrell, always in exile no matter where hehas chosen to settle, be it England, Corfu, Cyprus, Argentinia, Yugoslavia,Egypt or France, writing to Miller, an American first abroad in Paris thenreturned to the United States, to New York and eventually to Big Sur, wherehe was to live for most of the rest of his life. Over the course of theletters a remarkable friendship blossomed, one which withstood the tests ofdistance and age with remarkable fortitude, and which only death eventuallyended.The letters are often exuberant, coarse, and amusing; theychronicle the developing literary and personal fortunes of two remarkablemen: one the author of some of the most controversial books of thetwentieth century, the other author of the much-praised Alexandria Quartet,as well as countless volumes of poetry, drama, and travelwriting.

Introduced and annotated by Ian MacNiven, Durrell's officialbiographer, and completed two years before Durrell's death in 1990, thisvolume is a marvellous addition to the library of any reader of eitherDurrell or Miller, or anyone who appreciates seeing at first hand the innerworkings of rare and unique minds. ... Read more

Product Description
The best of Miller’s chapbooks bound into a single roaring volume.Resembling a musical sextet where no two instruments are the same, but all instruments blend to form a single sound, Henry Miller’s Sextet combines six jive-talkin’, fresh, and impromptu pieces of writing originally published as individual chapbooks by Capra Press: “On Turning Eighty,” “Reflections on the Death of Mishima,” “First Impressions of Greece,” “The Waters Reglitterized: The Subject of Water Colors in Some of its More Liquid Phases,” “Reflections on The Maurizius Case: A Humble Appraisal of a Great Book,” and “Mother, China and the World Beyond: A Dream in Which I Die and Find Myself in Devachan (Limbo) Where I Run into My Mother whom I Hated All My Life.”

Like your favorite band releasing a six-song EP to keep you salivating until its next full-length album, Sextet is a finger-snapping sample of Miller’s work with the blare of a clarion call, and lots of raucous humor and jazz. ... Read more

Product Description
A sparkling, lively record of a remarkableauthor/publisher relationship.Ever mercurial in temperament, an idealist who struggled financially to meet his material needs, Henry Miller for decades relied on his publisher James Laughlin's generosity and expert editorial advice. Although Miller's letters decried the conservatism of American book publishing and were often suspicious in tone, Miller nevertheless admired and trusted Laughlin with intimate details about his work and his personal life. The resulting correspondence, spanning from 1935 to 1979, shortly before Miller's death on June 7, 1980, is a remarkable, uncensored record of the ideas and intentions behind many of the author's most provocative literary endeavors.
... Read more

Product Description

A government monopoly over drug regulation is not sacrosanct. In fact, federal oversight—which vitally affects the availability of drugs to patients in need—is in shambles. The regulatory monopoly of the federal Food and Drug Administration has become, literally, overkill and actually threatens public health. Regulatory reform that introduces competition and incentives to get safe, effective drugs to patients can, however, transform the drug development process and reverse the current upward spiral of time and costs. The public will benefit directly by earlier access to greater numbers of less costly drugs and indirectly by greater robustness and productivity in the pharmaceutical industry.

Customer Reviews (3)

Who do you trust with your medical safety
Henry Miller is a fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. The articles he posts there are something that my undergrad logic teacher would have to flunk. (Example: If (A) there are drugs in the pipeline, and if (B) FDA must review data to show drugs are safe and effective, then (c) FDA's unreasonable review is the only thing stopping all drugs in the pipeline from working; therefore all drugs should be mass-marketed to human guinea pigs or else people will die from lack of access to drugs.)The conclusion is not supported by his premises, a problem in all Miller's writings. He also ignores history, failing to mention the kind of junk that was sold as cures before FDA came along.In fact the agency was established when the public insisted.Responsible manufacturers joined, struggling with dozens of different state laws and with disreputable competition undercutting them, counterfeiting their products, and selling products contaminated with filth, cheap fillers, and unintended cross-contamination from other ingredients made in the same facilities.

The truth is, there are lots of programs to get drugs, approved or not, to sick people.If only drug companies would manufacture them instead of the many kinds of "me, too" drugs with huge mark-ups, those drugs might be available.However, FDA can't review drugs that no one makes.FDA drug review takes on average barely more than 6 months despite volumes of data, and since someone has to review the data, anyway, that's not much real added time.And aren't you glad it's not drug company marketing departments doing the medical reviews? Peer review journals easily take that long to review the articles of studies submitted to them.

This is not to say FDA is perfect, always right, or no reform is needed.FDA review has changed much since the Food and Drug Modernization laws of drugs and devices since 1997.FDA's problems now are now mostly budgetary; it's entire budget has never even matched the increase NIH gets yearly until FDA was given bioterrorism duties on top of everything else in 2002. Even then, FDA total budget in 2002 sounds like a lot at about $1.3 billion (less than authorized); however, compare that to the NIH budget that year at $22 billion.

Miller's politics would eliminate all federal safety regulations, not just drug review but those for deadly pesticides and other environmental chemicals, and food contaminated by filth, and return to state regulations that even industry doesn't want.If you want to get a taste of his views, go to the Hoover articles website and search his name for the 9 articles posted there to date. If you're willing to challenge these assumptions, first briefly review logic principles (there are a few good logic pages on the web under edu or org pages that can introduce you to logical mistakes). Then check out Miller's articles for free, and see if the argments stand up to the light of day.After that if you enjoy his work, then by all means, exercise your right to buy his book.

Not impressed
While it may be true that some reform at the FDA is needed, the way this book portrays the problem is seriously flawed. This is surprising as it comes from a guy that actually worked at the FDA. The book is filled with number fudging, half truths and ridiculous distortions.For example, the book cited that the FDA raised the bar for clinical research that resulted in the time required for drug development to increase from 8.1 years to 15.2 years from 1960s to 1997 (Page 24). Why is that bad? Remember the law that requires a drug to be effective was only passed in 1962. Back then, a scientifically sound clinical study for effectiveness wasn't even defined. As the science progresses, the bar has to be raised. Moreover, a lot of drugs nowadays have to be taken for years (for example, statin drugs). The only way to know the long term safety of these drugs is to do long term study. Hence, long time required for clinical studies. Even with this kind of rigor, there are still drugs like Baycol out there harming people. In another place, the author quoted that the number of safety discontinuations as a percentage of total new drug introductions in each country were similar - about 4 percent in UK and 3 percent in US. The author thus concluded that a marketed drug will be removed from the market is not appreciable different in the UK and US (page 27). This is number fudging at its best. Sure, 4% and 3% are all small numbers. But 4%/3% is 1.33. That means UK approves 33% more harmful drugs than US. No wonder the FDA is viewed as the "gold standard."
I highly recommened a report by Public Citizen on the brandname drug industry. When people see how profitable they are and how little they actually devote to research, they won't believe all this whining on behalf of these companies.

Excellent Look At How Regulations Can Cost Lives
In politics, many different rules and regulations create problems for consumers. Regulations that cause people to die - or contribute to their deaths - should bear the highest possible level of scrutiny. In this book, medical doctor and former Food and Drug Administration official Henry Miller addresses problems with the way the FDA reviews and approves new medicines. His analysis is extremely important because, when the government delays the introduction of critical medical innovations, people can die.

The key point in Miller's argument is that imposing excessive regulatory costs on American pharmaceutical firms forces them to experience corporate mergers, reduced competition, and higher prices. In the long run, this leads companies to focus on shorter-term, lower-risk research and development intended for larger patient populations. Thus, smaller groups of patients in need of new medical innovations that require long-term study at higher per-capita costs suffer the most from delays in approving new products.

Miller addresses the myth that there must be a tradeoff between promoting more efficient drug research and improving drug safety. Efficiency and safety can both be improved simultaneously by introducing competition where regulatory oversight has become excessive and changing the FDA's role in the process. Rather than evaluating data itself, it should allow other organizations to evaluate clinical testing and focus on monitoring their efforts instead.

A key problem that many drug manufacturers face is that regulations are not static. When new rules are enacted, regulators generally adopt narrow interpretations of them, but broaden those interpretations as time goes on. Because of this, regulators must be viewed as a special interest group - expanding their turf by skirting congressional oversight and gradually inflating burdens for manufacturers underneath the radar screen.

These problems lead many companies to alter their research priorities. Instead of focusing solely on prospective benefits for consumers when choosing which products to develop, firms must account for potential regulatory costs as well. The high costs of getting drugs approved reduces the diversity of products being prepared - leading many companies to devote more energy to dealing with the regulatory apparatus. Innovation suffers as a result.

The biggest problem with the FDA's current system, though, is its lack of accountability to the public. Consumers cannot participate in its product-review process and cannot obtain judicial review of its decisions. In addition, seldom is information about delayed or rejected drugs and medical devices made available to the media. Thus, the nature of the evaluation process itself reduces consumers' freedom of choice and individual autonomy. It leads many frustrated consumers to travel abroad to obtain safe drugs and services not available here in the U.S.

Fortunately, Miller offers a solution to the problem: allow independent, non-profit drug certifying bodies - instead of the FDA - to review test results from companies. Then allow the FDA to monitor the technical, scientific, and managerial expertise of these bodies to ensure they perform proper reviews. This would be similar to OSHA's accreditation process for testing laboratories. It would also introduce much needed competition, innovation, and efficiency into the oversight process and help alleviate many of the perverse incentives regulators face when interpreting new standards.

Overall, America's drug review procedure is in need of reform. Excessive regulations that lead to increased suffering or death among consumers should be repealed. In addition, when the regulatory process itself delays new technologies or innovations that can reduce suffering or death among the public, the procedure itself should be closely examined. Miller's book sheds new light on a frequently-ignored cost of overregulation: how preventing the adoption of new products or services that save lives can be just as costly as overlooking those that cost lives. His arguments should be given careful consideration by anyone who is concerned about the state of health care in the United States. ... Read more

Product Description

Drawing on previously unpublished eyewitness accounts, prizewinning historian Donald L. Miller has written what critics are calling one of the most powerful accounts of warfare ever published. Here are the horror and heroism of World War II in the words of the men who fought it, the journalists who covered it, and the civilians who were caught in its fury. Miller gives us an up-close, deeply personal view of a war that was more savagely fought -- and whose outcome was in greater doubt -- than readers might imagine. This is the war that Americans at the home front would have read about had they had access to the previously censored testimony of the soldiers on which Miller builds his gripping narrative.

Miller covers the entire war -- on land, at sea, and in the air -- and provides new coverage of the brutal island fighting in the Pacific, the bomber war over Europe, the liberation of the death camps, and the contributions of African Americans and other minorities. He concludes with a suspenseful, never-before-told story of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, based on interviews with the men who flew the mission that ended the war.Amazon.com Review
In 1945, the noted historian Henry Steele Commager, then employed by the U.S. Office of War Information, published The Story of World War II, a comprehensive survey of a struggle still terribly fresh. Donald Miller, himself an accomplished historian, amplifies Commager's work with this substantially revised edition.

Drawing on oral histories and on the vast body of literature that followed the original edition, Miller writes vividly of the key events that shaped the progress of the war, from Dunkirk to the surrender of the Japanese government aboard the U.S.S. Missouri. Along the way, he examines the war as it played out on many fronts, incorporating the memories of women defense workers, German and Japanese combat veterans, and the ordinary Allied soldiers whom correspondent Ernie Pyle called "doggies." The text is thoroughly illustrated with period photographs, maps, and sidebars, adding both to its immediacy and its usefulness as a reference work.

Concentrating on the war through American eyes, Miller and Commager's book is far from definitive. Even so, it makes an important addition to the growing library of work devoted to the era, and readers with an interest in World War II will learn much from its pages. --Gregory McNamee ... Read more

Customer Reviews (22)

RIP OFF WARNING
Unfortunately this is a very poor ezample of WWII scholarship. Poorly written on a elementary school level. Poorly developed ideas as well. nothing original here. Juvenile work. I feel robbed of five dollars. DO NOT BUY. The experience will make serious readers ANGRY. Amazon should vet selections better. Complete trash!

A must read
The the tittle of this book augurs the sense and structure of the book. It is "the story" of the war.It is not hardcore, academic history.It is very readable and engaging. The story has a bipartate structure consisting of a brief stratigic "chess board" discription of important events in the conduct of the war which are clear and concise.This discription of each event is followed by intenslely personal and compelling accounts of the men actually invovled in the events.

I was dismayed, however, that Mr. Miller is such a racist.He apparently feels that heroic men and their heroic deeds can only be viewed thru the prism of race.I long for the day we can simply say a man was a hero that helped write history without the need to qualify it with his race.

Other reviews disparage theis book because it presents an "American" view of the war. Well, if you do not understand the American view you do not understand the war.No book can give a comprehensive view of such an event. You want other views read other books.

If you are a student of WWII you will learn interesting tidbits of information and perhaps rearrange some of your thinking.
If you are not well versed on the war, then it should be manditory that you read it.

Should be titled "The Story of America in World War II"
While the book is easy to read and adequately written, there are two major flaws that, IMO, really detract from it:
1) It is really imbalanced. It is basically the story of ww2 from the American perspective. Now I'm a big fan of America's role in WW2 (I'm an American) but I thought I was getting a more general and comprehensive overview when I bought it. I wanted to read about the whole war. Of course, events that we didn't take part in are included but are given relatively little attention. However, I'm well aware that other reviewers have found this bias to be a plus. If this angle is what you're looking for, then you may like this account.

2)The first-hand accounts are too many and often too long. Again, this is a matter of personal preference but I got tired of it. In a one volume book about such a complex and epic struggle, it doesn't make economic sense to hear one guy's 2 page description of a few days in a single campaign. While some may appreciate that these first person accounts add human interest, I think it's at the expense of a more scholarly and thorough treatment of the subject.

At 700+ pages, I would have thought that this book was more thorough and comprehensive. I was disappointed. On the plus side, there are many photos, it is very easy to read, and it provides a decent general overview of (mostly our role in) WW2. But I'm sure there are better ones out there (I liked A Short History of WWII by Stokesbury, but there are probably others).

PC WWII for American children
This book is kind of a short summary of the second world war from an exclusively American point of view. Commanger's original work stands on its own and is far superior to Miller's overtly PC rewrite. Why Miller went out of his way to butcher someone else's book is really unexplainable.

For a historian, he doesn't have a good command of the war except at a superficial kind of level. He makes up for that with lots of personal stories of men who fought in the war. What you are getting here is the equivlent of a PC American high school version of the war. And if thats what your looking for, have at it I guess.

The original version would get five stars from me. This butchered rewrite obviously does not.

The Truth, Plain and Simple
More than any other book I've ever read, this book tells the truth about what happened in WWII, and about warfare.The key is the first-hand accounts.We all know in general what happened, with Nazis attacking and so forth, but this book gets you inside the events through the words of participants.This tremendous tragedy is often heart-breaking, but incredibly important.Again and again the lessons of history are ignored, or never even noticed, by world leaders.This book brings about a greater understanding of the real, ruthless nature of the United States, and of great leaders such as FDR.For example, FDR personally emphasized the necessity to bomb German and Japanese cities, not only to destroy industry, but also because he wanted these nations to turn away from war from the top to the bottom.The fire-bombing in Tokyo and the German city of Dresden, for example, intentionally created fire storms of immense ferocity and total devastation.While the ruthlessness of FDR may be startling, what should be more startling is his profound insight.Japan and Germany in fact did turn away from war and through FDR's plans such as the UN and the Marshall Plan, and were rehabilitated into leading peaceful Republics.The incredible, horrible truth of warfare is told here.There's a lot that I never heard about before.The African-American Red Tails, specifically created by Marshall and FDR, were incredible pilots with a tremendous record who were in demand by bomber squadrons.Patton was deeply prejudiced but used black tankers, who were among the best.The Japanese GI squadrons in Italy, including Senator Inouye, were lethally heroic.It ain't pretty.For example, U.S. GIs used 50 caliber machine guns to mow down Nazi SS guards who had been rounded up at a concentration camp, but were still taunting emaciated camp prisoners.The GIs were outraged by the camp.It was filmed, but the film vanished.In the Pacific, the war was a war of extermination against an enemy with a suicidal ideology, featuring dominating American Naval power, enormous bombardments by the Navy and the Army Air Force that never worked as well as hoped against ingenious Japanese positions, brutal flame-throwing tanks and other American firepower, but it still devolved to hand-to-hand combat.Much of the conduct of the Japanese I have never heard about in realistic detail, including hideous abuse of POWs, targeting of the wounded, massacres of civilians and other atrocities in which Hirohito was complicit.Pentagon leaders should read about how we beat the ideologically suicidal Japanese soldiers in the Pacific, to understand what it takes against modern threats like the Taliban and Al Queda.It ain't pretty, but it's what happened and it created the world of today. ... Read more

Product Description
Here is the inimitable Henry Miller (1891-1980) speaking candidly about himself and his robust fiction--Tropic of Cancer, Tropic of Capricorn, The Air-Conditioned Nightmare. In this enticing collection he argues convincingly for the things that have mattered in his full and exhilarating life. He and his interviewers cover the range of his engrossing works that stirred obscenity charges, as well as his life as an expatriate, his loves and conquests, his goals, his beliefs, and his probing insights into the culture that produced him and repulsed him.

These conversations serve as a retrospective visit with one of America's most distinctively opinionated, most singularly identifiable, and most invigorating authors. ... Read more

Product Description
A guide to reading "Daisy Miller" and "The Turn of the Screw" with a critical and appreciative mind encouraging analysis of plot, style, form, and structure. Also includes background on the author's life and times, sample tests, term paper suggestions, and a reading list. ... Read more

Product Description

At first glance, the works of Fedor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) do not appear to have much in common with those of the controversial American writer Henry Miller (1891-1980). However, the influencer of Dostoevsky on Miller was, in fact, enormous and shaped the latter's view of the world, of literature, and of his own writing. The Making of a Counter-Culture Icon examines the obsession that Miller and his contemporaries, the so-called Villa Seurat circle, had with Dostoevsky, and the impact that this obsession had on their own work.

Renowned for his psychological treatment of characters, Dostoevsky became a model for Miller, Lawrence Durrell, and Anais Nin, interested as they were in developing a new kind of writing that would move beyond staid literary conventions. Maria Bloshteyn argues that, as Dostoevsky was concerned with representing the individual's perception of the self and the world, he became an archetype for Miller and the other members of the Villa Seurat circle, writers who were interested in precise psychological characterizations as well as intriguing narratives. Tracing the cross-cultural appropriation and (mis)interpretation of Dostoevsky's methods and philosophies by Miller, Durrell, and Nin, The Making of a Counter-Culture Icon gives invaluable insight into the early careers of the Villa Seurat writers and testifies to Dostoevsky's influence on twentieth-century literature.