Some time ago, perhaps measured in half decades, my wife and I started reading the Sherlock Holmes books and stories of Arthur Conan Doyle aloud. We bogged down about halfway through, mainly due to difficulty reading the somewhat archaic language aloud. Years later I finished them on my own. So, sometime in 2010, on a trip to Barnes & Noble, I was pleased to find on the mark-down table Arthur Conan Doyle: A Life in Letters. How could I not snatch up the beautiful looking hardback? I was reading Doyle, and I love reading letters and biographies.

At that time I made a marker for each book I read out of scrap paper and recorded my reading progress; I still do that sometimes. I started reading on 24 March 2010. After three days the next entries are in August 2010, which took me up to page 82. A gap in the entries doesn’t tell me when I read, but when I picked this up in April this year, I started reading at page 359. I think I read those other pages back in 2010.

That I put this book down for some years is not indicative of the enjoyment I derived from it. As I said I love reading collections of letters. This one was no exception.

I don’t know how many of Doyle’s letters have been collected. Since most of his literary life was in the days before telephone, you would think he had a lot of letters—to publishers, editors, other writers, investment advisors, etc. For this book, the three editors chose to mainly use letters between Doyle and his mother. She seems to have kept all that he sent her. They are valuable in terms of understanding Doyle’s life as a writer, for he told her what he was working on, how it was received by publishers, how new works were received by the public, etc.

The early years were a struggle. Doyle studied to be a doctor and became one, though the medical profession in the 1880s-1890s was quite different than today. Learning about that was informative. While he was struggling to make a living from medicine he was also struggling to become a writer. Two careers, simultaneous struggles. Doyle’s descriptions of that were fascinating.

We know now that his main success was in writing, with the Sherlock Holmes stories being his biggest hit. Knowing little about Doyle except for Holmes, I was amazed at how many other works he wrote, most having nothing to do with the detective genre. Maybe Doyle had a bit of Genre Focus Disorder long before I created the term. It seemed to work for him, however, as many of his other books/stories met with success.

Doyle tired of Holmes and “killed him” at the falls. Public demand was so great, however, that Doyle found a way to bring him back, with stories that preceded his struggle at the falls with Moriarty, and then showing that he hadn’t actually died. Close to half the Holmes stories were written after Doyle wanted to move on to something else.

The editors did a good job of using their words to illustrate what the letters were saying. It was a good mix of Doyle’s words and the editors’ commentary. I would have liked to have had more correspondence than just the letters to his mother. The book had a few others, but well over 95 percent of the 684 pages were Doyle to his mother. Adding letters to others would have been interesting, but would also have changed the nature of the book.

If you like Arthur Conan Doyle, if you like Sherlock Holmes, if you like letters, this book is well worth reading. Since I got it from the bargain table, I don’t know that it’s in print any more, but you could try to find it.

The big question is, will I keep this? I have so many books, and I’m far enough along in this earthly life that I really should get rid of all books I don’t believe I will read again. I’m not sure why I would re-read this one. Well, maybe to re-read some of the early years struggles, and what he wrote about creating his most famous character.

Or maybe just so that my collection of books of letters is more complete. There, I’ve talked myself into it. For now it goes back on the shelf.

Many years ago I began reading Arthur Conan Doyle: A Life In Letters. I picked that up at Barnes and Noble, off the bargain table, and immediately began reading it. But, as way so often leads on to way, I got a couple of hundred pages in then set it aside. This months I finally finished it. From 2010 to 2019 is a long time to read a book.

I’ll be doing a report on that book, but not today. In it Doyle mentioned in a letter that he wrote a book of literary essays. That sounded interesting to me. Coming from 1907 it would be in the public domain, so I looked for it and found it. Through the Magic Door was published in 1908. it consists of a discussion, not strictly about authors, but about books on Conan Doyle’s bookshelf. This was a favorite bookshelf, I assume, one that had his favorite books on it. In this it differs from other books of literary essays, which at that time tended to concentrate on the authors, not on their books.

I obtained this at no cost on Google Play and put all else aside and began the book. The opening lines drew me right in.

I care not how humble your bookshelf may be, nor how lowly the room which it adorns. Close the door of that room behind you, shut off with it all the cares of the outer world, plunge back into the soothing company of the great dead, and then you are through the magic portal into that fair land whither worry and vexation can follow you no more. You have left all that is vulgar and all that is sordid behind you. There stand your noble, silent comrades, waiting in their ranks.

This is a wonderful opening. The book at hand almost lived up to it. Doyle starts out with his Macaulay book, his English history. This was his largest work and his last, actually not being completed. I’ve tried to read it but was put off by it, most probably the dated language and style. Doyle was writing only five or so decades after it was published, so it was much fresher to that era.

Macaulay’s essays also find space in Doyle’s book. These I’ve had more success with. I’m far from finishing them, but the ones I’ve read have held my interest and informed me. That’s good enough praise for things written in the 1820s and 1830s.

After this, the further you get into Magic Door, Doyle seems to degenerate. From entire chapters on one author he changes over to entire chapters covering entire shelves. He rushed through descriptions of books by author’s I’ve never heard of. It was good to hear about them, but Doyle didn’t give me enough to make me want to go out and find and read them. Pity. I’m sure they would be good to read, but I just don’t have enough to draw me to them.

Through the Magic Door was good. Had I this book in hard copy, I believe I would keep it and note it as one to be read again in the future. Doyle is a good writer. This volume is a good companion to Sherlock Holmes and, perhaps, other of Doyle’s writings I hope someday to pick up.

For some time I’ve been aware  of Fletcher Prouty, and that he had a story to tell in the JFK assassination. He was mentioned in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK (Donald Sutherland’s character “X”). He’s been in other books or articles about the assassination. Yet, I’d never read anything he actually wrote about it.

So, when I was at Barnes & Noble one time and saw his book JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, I naturally bought it. I had it for close to a year before it found its way to the top of the reading pile, a pile I haven’t had much success at reducing recently.

Alas, I was disappointed in it. All this time hoping he wrote about the assassination, only to find his book was barely worth reading.

First, his story. Prouty was in the Army Air Corps in WW2, having a variety of assignments during the war and right after. During the Cairo and Teheran conferences in late 1943, he was pilot for delegations attending the conference, particularly the Chinese delegation—all except for the Chinese leader, Chiang Kai Shek and his wife. He starts his narrative there, saying decisions made at the Cairo conference had implications in Vietnam and later. The Cold War, he said, started at Cairo and Teheran, when the USA and England teamed with the Chinese in silent battle against the USSR.

Then, he says he was aware that, when the Japanese surrendered, all the war materiel being accumulated on Okinawa had to go somewhere, and it was all taken to Hanoi to help Vietnam, then one country and led by Ho Chi Mihn, in its war against the lingering French colonists. That materiel would eventually be used against the USA.

The problem, Prouty said, was the US intelligence services, first the OSS then the CIA, ventured far outside the field of intelligence gatherings into covert operations. In Vietnam, those operations were keeping things fomenting in a country that was, at best, loosely a country in fact, so that attention would go there. The domino theory of nations falling to the communists was but a smokescreen for the CIA’s real work, says Prouty.

It’s all tied in to the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. The CIA keeps things roiling in different parts of the world. The USA needs to be prepared, so keeps buying military hardware. Industrialists thus profit, and taxpayers lose. That sort of makes sense, but I don’t believe he fully makes the case.

As I’m reading, I’m wondering how this ties to the JFK assassination. Prouty finally gets to that. He makes a big deal about a National Security Memorandum which shows that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam, a slow withdrawal from our troop strength of 16,000 down to none over a three year period. This went against what the CIA, by this time a strong power in the government, wanted. So they assassinated Kennedy, who had said in casual conversation he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces.

Prouty doesn’t make his case well. Oh, he talks about this agent and that, this operation and that, showing how they weren’t meant to do anything but promote unrest in Vietnam. But he doesn’t say how the CIA accomplished the assassination. How was Oswald involved, or was he involved at all, if it was a CIA plot? Who were the shooters, and how did they get away unseen? How is it that the Warren Commission uncovered none of this? An enquiring reader wants to know.

Prouty’s book is poorly written. The NSM mentioned earlier is covered over and over in the book. Each time Prouty gives us the full story about it. He’ll say something like “…as covered in NSM #268, which concerned troop withdrawals from Vietnam by the end of 1964…” He does this over and over. It’s as if he doesn’t trust his readers to read about this NSM the first time and understand what it covered thereafter throughout the book. He does this over and over, acting as if his readers were two yea- olds who needed to have the same thing explained to them many times. He does this with many things in the book.

He had some important things to say, but, having finished the book back in August of this year, those important things are already fading from my memory. And that’s not a good testimony for a non-fiction book.

If I could talk with the author, I would say, “Mr. Prouty, sir, you blew it. You had a good story to tell—at least I think you do, but you got off in the weeds and didn’t trust your readers. Hence, I can’t recommend your book.”

Who should read this? Only die-hard Kennedy assassination researchers and students who want to leave no related book unread.

This book will stay on my shelf, with other Kennedy books. I might even read it again, in my retirement, and see if I can glean more and better information from it. For right now, it’s going to get a mere two-stars from me on an Amazon and Goodreads review.

Some time ago (meaning at least a year) I picked up a copy of Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? The price on the dust jacket is $22.95, but I know I didn’t pay that for it. It was published in 1991. I imagine I got it at a thrift store for a couple of bucks.

Was it a good purchase? Absolutely yes, so long as the price was under $5.00. I’ve read a lot of Kennedy assassination books. And I’ve known of Mark Lane for a long time. He was first into the market, in 1964, with a book-length critique of how the assassination investigation was being handled. Rush To Judgment is highly thought of by those who are convinced that the Warren Commission got it wrong.

The book is about a trial that was held in 1985, when E. Howard Hunt, former CIA agent of Watergate fame, sued the organization Liberty Lobby for an article that appeared in 1978 in their magazine Spotlight, the article saying that Hunt was in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. The issue had been tried before, in 1981, with a verdict for Hunt and an award of $650,000.

But that verdict was set aside on a technicality. In the re-trial, Lane represented Liberty Lobby. The jury returned the opposite result this time: Liberty Lobby didn’t defame Hunt by publishing the article.

Lane’s approach was different than the first trial. First he had to set aside a ruling that the defense agreed Hunt wasn’t in Dallas that day. This he did successfully. Then he argued a strategy that Hunt almost certainly was in Dallas that day. Or, if he wasn’t, he couldn’t remember exactly where he was when he first learned about the assassination, and the memories of his three children, who at the time were old enough to carry those memories with them to adulthood, were aghast at what their dad might have done.

Lane’s conclusion: Hunt wasn’t with his children in the hours after the assassination. Where was he? Lane argues “in Dallas”. Doing what? Probably not pulling the trigger, but somehow superintending or aiding in the conspiracy to kill the president.

Lane, a practicing attorney at the time, goes somewhat deeply into the legal issues, the rules of evidence, the effect first trial decisions had on the second, nuances of depositions and cross-examinations. It was a little long for my liking, but not excessively long. I think Lane could have ditched about twenty pages of legal processes without hurting the book.

I found Plausible Denial informative. I learned a number of things I didn’t before. I’ve known for a long time that the CIA has been suspected of taking out the president, but didn’t really know why people thought that. Thanks to this book, I do now.

Lane’s argument to that: Hunt was CIA (before and after working at the White House for Chuck Colson); he was well-versed in covert operations; if Hunt was in Dallas that day but didn’t have a reason to be there such that he needs to hide the fact, then it must be a CIA operation. Lane makes the case much better in his 384 pages than I have in this paragraph.

On Amazon, I will give this book 4 stars. One star is removed for the excess legal discussion, and for the lack of sources. Some of Lane’s discussion comes off as speculative rather than factual. Still, it’s a good book.

Who should read it? If you’ve not read anything about the JFK assassination, this is NOT the book to start with. Any number of other books would be better. But this could be third or fourth on your list.

For me, this is a keeper, along with my other books on the subject (which includes Rush To Judgment, which I’ve yet to read). I will likely read it again during my retirement, when I will put my JFK library in a pile and read them back-to-back.