Yes, and I have. All Americans should have an understanding as to what was going on during this momentous even in US history. It was laid out in chronological order, with the proper amount of background to give one an appreciation for what was taking place.
Bill O'Reilly is a good newsman, but he read the book like he was doing his 'No Spin Zone' commentary. The monotonous cadence became very distracting.
For US history buffs, this book is a must.
I have read several of the books by Gingrich. His trilogy on the Civil War was excellent in its first two books, then became so PC in the third that it hurt the series.
It is common in war books to jump from one character's vantage point to another, but in this book, they not only do that but change the time frame by several weeks many times. Plus the wording became so repetitious that it became laughable. I was very disappointed with this whole effort. Also, the tremendous amount of cursing in this book seemed totally out of order for the time period.
If this were my first read of Gingrich/Forstchen, it would be my last. However, their other books were much better.
This book ranks among my enjoyable books. It was not among the outstanding, but good nonetheless.
This book made me feel like I was on the infantry side of the Aubrey/Maturin series.
The narration was good. Sometimes the suspense was drawn out too long, but overall well done and an interesting read.
I would only recommend this book for those who have continued through all the Hornblower books, to get closure.
Hornblower's constant introspection becomes increasingly tiring and boring. The over all story line is good enough, but Horatio's mind games with himself got more and more distracting.
I would have put things more in chronological order.
I believe he started with a wrong premise. Truly 1775 was important leading up to 1776, but so was 1774, and 1773, etc. He is trying to prove a point that isn't an issue. As a result he continually uses events from many years before 1776 and from different socialogical angles.
To me, history is always interesting in itself. However, so much of it is left up to the interpreter. When it comes to figuring out what part of 1775 was religion the main motivator, or economic factors, etc. the conclusions are solely in the hand of the story teller.
Constant quotes without identification of the leanings of the quoters. I already know the untrustworthiness of the groups like the NYT, so, why would I believe any quotes from them?
Probably if he had a better book.
Yes, the refreshing part was that he did put both parties in the same boat. I would agree with him that they are co-conspirators in the downfall of our nation, and constitution.
Perhaps not as captivating as Forester's previous book, but still a good and interesting listen. Christian Rodska did a great job with the reading, which helped to keep the few dull parts interesting. I found the whole experience enjoyable.
This was one of the best books on British Naval challenges during the Napolionic era. It was entertaining, and very well performed. I have read the O'brian "Aubrey/Maturin" series and found this book much better.
McCaddon did a good job on the voices and narrative. Without her strong performance, I would have given a lower overall rating.
I have read a lot of history on Churchill and Britain before and during WWII. I love the time period and the resolve of the people. The story does give one an appreciation for the complexities and dangers of that era for the British people.
Too many long periods of 'dull' in the book.
This is the last Nicolas Coster performance that I will spend my time to listen.
The story of Hornblower and Atropos has as good a plot and story as any of the others, but the narrator was a constant irritation. The previous narrators enhanced the enjoyment of listening to the book, but Nicolas Coster seemed bored when he did this. Throughout the book he would lapse into a practical whisper that would totally detract from the book.
Report Inappropriate Content