@wagga & aileth: I have many thoughts on literary education, but I'll save them for later. I read a few chapters of Uncle Tom's Cabin earlier this year, but I didn't like Stowe's writing style or even the plot.

French Revolution: I didn’t know our revolution had bankrupted France and I’m sorry for it. But I’m curious about Jefferson’s supporting role (money, etc). I plan to dip into Burke and Carlyle’s works on the French Revolution, if their style pleases me. Do you think Pitt was right to be neutral? What if Britain had intervened? Could she have prevented the rise of Napoleon?

The French poured money into the American Revolution and were engaging Britain across the globe in naval warfare. Things really came together at Yorktown where the French fleet surrounded the British and the Americans showed up to block them from escape via land route. There's no question we couldn't have succeeded without help from the French, at the very least with regards to arms and materiel, but it cost the French coffers grievously, and it was this more than anything else that sparked the French Revolution because they had no money in the midst of a bad year of crops. We didn't help matters when we decided to favor the British with more trade benefits when we signed the Treaty of Paris, especially considering the debt we owed to our French allies. When the Terror broke out some, like Jefferson, supported the revolutionaries. Adams had problems with them from the start when they started giving us grief on the high seas with seizing ships bound for Britain with cargo (the Brits were doing this too but they stopped doing so after signing the Jay Treaty in 95') and John Adams was put in a position where he had to defend his ships while not engaging in an all out war with the fledgling French Republic. There was the XYZ Affair and then the Quasi-War and and everyone was kind miffed with each other, but it all ended working out. I don't know that Britain entering the war earlier with France would have made much difference. Europe was almost constantly engaged in a series of continual wars back then. We sure couldn't have done anything even if we had wanted to. We were laden with debt from our own War of Independence and at any rate Washington was very adamant about steering clear of European affairs. He was viewed by his fellow countrymen (and I greatly admire the man myself) as one of the Great Men of the Age, so you didn't do anything that Washington didn't advocate for.

See how I just run off at the mouth if no one steps in?

Cities and Pimpernel: you have a right to your opinion, but I think your judgment on these novels is poor.

So I've been told many times before. Like I said, perhaps I'm too practical about my reading preferences, or maybe my biases play a part in it too, I don't know. ToTC just crossed me as extremely dull and plodding. I'm not opposed to character interaction and development but a book put in that setting should not be dull, especially with severed heads rolling about the place like a balls in a bowling alley. Hence my preference for Orczy's work. Scarlet Letter was one I read in high school and I really disliked it then. Dittos with Silas Marner. On the latter I did try reading it again several years ago and came away with the conclusion that it's a short story trapped in a novel's body. The story itself is a good one but it was needlessley drawn out. As for your Harlequin reference I've read a Harlequin romance before just to see why legions of housewives find them so addictive and discovered there seems to be a common thread which runs through them. Strong but emotionally vulnerable woman meets hunky but unattainable man and...cue the Marvin Gaye music. Pimpernel is more of an action/adventure story in the style of an old swashbuckler movie. Thus I wouldn't say my judgement is poor, probably just not in alignment with yours in this case.

French Revolution: I didn’t know our revolution had bankrupted France and I’m sorry for it.... Do you think Pitt was right to be neutral? What if Britain had intervened? Could she have prevented the rise of Napoleon?

No, I wouldn't feel at all sorry that helping USA bankrupted France. And yes, Pitt was definitely right to remain neutral as it was far too late for Great Britain to do any more than she did. Great Britain as she already was at the time would not have gained anything at all, only spread the turbulence to her own cost. Remember, she had lost USA, and whatever benefit she had gained by this territory, though she had gained Canada when General Wolfe defeated the French at the Plains of Abraham.

Besides, with the French Revolution, French expansionism was virtually put out of action until Napoleon revived it. It isn't as if the French King had been friendly to Britain, and if France was bankrupted by the American Revolution that was because it is a bit odd to go out of their way to finance the Americans to take on GB, applauding the American resistance to British tyranny, with nice fine sentiments when these sentiments were so lacking in France itself. And it wasn't their only "stuff-up". Can anyone tell me about the Louisiana Purchase? I bet the loss of that territory must have hurt France deeply.

Now, I don't know much about USA history, only from the other side. But did you know that the already powerful British parliament was just as much to blame as King George III for the heavy handed treatment of the American colonists? And did you also know that the French parliament, first started shortly after the English one, established by Edward I of England, back in the 13th century, was never as strong as the British one? I'm not saying French aristocrats were all bad, and the beheading of so many people was definitely unjust, often the result of people carrying grudges against individuals. But French and English rivalry has been a constant sore in both their histories, ever since 1066. And by 1789, the whole French system, what was known as L'Ancien Regime, was rotten to the core.

The French Revolution started a year after the founding of Australia by the First Fleet, under Governor Arthur Phillip, who died two centuries ago this year. This colony was established here to prevent French expansion to the new lands discovered by Captain Cook and Abel Tasman. In 1788 King George III had his first of several episodes of madness. After that was the tempest in France that even Louis X1V, the great-grandfather of Louis XV, and the ancestor of the overwhelmed Louis XVI, foresaw.

Lately I have been reading the first two books of The Accursed Kings, a French historical series written by Maurice Druon. This was the tale of Philip 1V the Fair, who, with his three sons, was the last Capetian monarch of France. So far, I've read The Iron King and now I am half-way through The Strangled Queen. Given the detail Maurice Druon supplies in footnotes, it is quite an eye-opener about Philip IV, whose daughter, Isabella, overthrew her husband, the Plantagenet Edward II, and whose daughters-in-law supplied the reasons why Queens never reigned in France in their own right, unlike our present Queen Elizabeth.

George R.R Martin, the author responsible for Game of Thrones, has said he regards Maurice Druon's series as his inspiration for his well-known book and the TV films produced from the series. As George R.R.Martin admits, himself, in his foreword to the Strangled Queen, "the Starks and the Lannisters have nothing on the Capets and the Plantagenets".

I have also been reading Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall & Bring up the bodies, her ongoing saga of Thomas Cromwell, one of the main players in the English Reformation, until he was executed in 1540 to please Henry VIII of England. This is yet another rollicking yarn, which won't be completed until she finishes the final book. The second book is such an improvement on the first, as in the first book Hilary Mantel often failed to specify exactly which man was the "He" she was referring to as she narrated the story.

Can anyone tell me about the Louisiana Purchase? I bet the loss of that territory must have hurt France deeply.

It's a pretty interesting piece of US history. Napoleon needed cash to keep fighting his various wars so he sold off a very sizeable chunk of western American territory to do so. No one really knew what the territory contained, not even the French, so upon purchase in 1803 President Jefferson sent the famed Lewis & Clark Expedition off to see if they could find the fabled Northwest Passage. They were looking for a water passage to the Pacific for trade purposes as many had been ever since North America was first discovered by Europeans. They gathered a group of about 30 men and set off from St. Louis to see the lay of the land, so to speak. Among some of the things they were told to look for, believe it or not, were dinosaurs (I am serious) and I want to say the mythical Lost Tribe of Israel. They eventually got close to modern day Seattle-Tacoma and wintered there and then returned home the next year while losing only one man to appendicitis. That's a major accomplishment considering the miles they covered through areas where the locals weren't always amicable towards them. The help of Sacagewea can't be understated either as she was their primary translator with the various tribes they encountered on the way. I read Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose several years ago and was so impressed with this period of history that it is now one of my dreams to retrace the steps of the Corps of Discovery as it traveled across the continent. It is really interesting stuff!

*comes in with popcorn for the history discussion* I've read a few books on the Lewis and Clark expedition but most of them focused on what happened after they left as opposed to the circumstances of the Louisiana Purchase.

Wagga, I was under the impression that Hilary Mantel wrote a fictionalized version of the era... is that true?

Aileth, while I can't claim the same familiarity with Zane Grey that I have with Louis L'Amor, his books The Last Trail and Betty Zane are somewhere on my favourites list. (I have the Whitman version of the first and I have this feeling it might be abridged but it doesn't say, so... I always felt like there ought to be at least one more preceding Betty Zane but it doesn't come with a series list, alas.) But the other two I read were pretty forgettable.

Hey Melty, you'll find this interesting . I think it was when the Corps hit the Dakotas, Lewis decided to send some specimens of some of the strange things they came across along the way back to President Jefferson. Among them was a pair of prairie dogs. One unfortunately didn't make the trip home but the other did and Jefferson kept it as a sort of pet for several years. My folks had a pet prairie dog for a long time and it was a loveable little creature that was filled with personality. I can't imagine what Jefferson made out of the little guy.

Only a woman could have written such melodrama.

Well, that's a fairly misogynist thing to say, isn't it?

As for the rest, I'll stand with Shadowlander and say that there's just a difference of opinion here, having very little to do with the quality of the literature in question. You mentioned Hugo's writing in Notre Dame being "intoxicating," which is hardly a word I myself would use in relation to that book. I stopped reading it years ago after forcing my way through the first 100 pages or so. I plan to finish it someday, but even as an English major with a Master's degree, I still find many of the "great books" to be lacking when it comes to my personal enjoyment. I also enjoy books many others I know despise (such as Moby Dick). Everyone's tastes are different, even among friends and like-minded people.

I'm currently reading a mix of books. I'm working through a collection of Bradbury's short stories. (SL's and Bella's discussion of him a page or two back got my appetite whetted again. ) I've discovered that my opinion of "The Fog Horn" has changed a bit since my first encounter with it in sixth grade. Then, I had no idea what was happening and thought it was far too long. Now, I think it's probably on the short end (but I'm not complaining ) and I get what's going on. It's quite amusing how that happens.

I'm also working my way through the Dragonriders of Pern series, which a church friend is loaning me a few at a time. I'm going in roughly publication order, and have made it through the two original trilogies (Dragonriders of Pern and the Harper Hall). I'm currently in Moreta: Dragonlady of Pern, which is similar to the first couple of books in style and tone, but very different in content. I'm not devouring it as much as the first few books, but I've had some late nights with little reading time.

I'm also listening to Stephen King's The Stand; I'm up to about halfway or a little further. I'm starting to lose interest, but I think that's just because I have a hard time with audio books over 30 hours when they are of books I've never read before. I devour the audio versions of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. I must say, I am having trouble seeing why this is such a popular book. It's got a good premise and the first section's very well done, but this middle part is dragging worse than anything I've read in a long while. Maybe the ending is good. I do think it's got me more interested in trying King's Dark Tower series. We'll see if the library has those.

Napoleon needed cash to keep fighting his various wars so he sold off a very sizeable chunk of western American territory to do so. No one really knew what the territory contained, not even the French, so upon purchase in 1803 President Jefferson sent the famed Lewis & Clark Expedition off to see if they could find the fabled Northwest Passage. They were looking for a water passage to the Pacific for trade purposes as many had been ever since North America was first discovered by Europeans.

Now that is most interesting. I thought it was Louis XVI, not Napoleon, who made that less than profitable deal, judging by the less than stellar opinion his countrymen had of him. Instead of which it was a scam with a diamond necklace that Marie Antoinette didn't even want, let alone ask for, which did for her. It seems some jewellers were forcing her to buy and it appears the scandal tipped the French over the edge.

The historic links with Lewis & Clark are also interesting. If I was much younger and able to do something like that, I'd want to visit those places too. The Louisiana purchase looks a lot bigger than I'd ever imagined, taking in more of USA than the bit around New Orleans which I first thought it was.

Then there was the timing. In 1803 two ships, the Cairo & the Ocean, landed convicts and free settlers at a place, now called Rosebud, with a view to settle near what would later become Melbourne. But they didn't find that particular place suitable for their needs so decamped to Tasmania, joining with some earlier settlers in January 1804 to form the modern day city of Hobart. Meanwhile, Matthew Flinders in that same year, circumnavigated the mainland of Australia, but later was imprisoned by the French on the island of Mauritius, whilst returning to England. And speaking of the North West Passage, one Sir John Franklin, a governor of Tasmania, was to die looking for said passage.

Wagga, I was under the impression that Hilary Mantel wrote a fictionalized version of the era... is that true?

Yes, it is a fictionalised account as is Maurice Druon's series. But in UK novelists like Hilary Mantel, Alison Weir or Dr Philippa Gregory who write such fiction are often highly qualified historical researchers as well. You see, historic fiction gives the writers a chance to explain pet theories about mysterious happenings in history without contradicting the facts insofar as they are known. For instance, many of these writers would have different views of Richard III, a controversial king, whose skeleton was found in 2012, underneath a reserved parking space in a Leicester car park.