Full Version: The Book Review Thread
We already have a thread, which has been dormant for a few months, about books members are reading. I have a different vision for this thread. I would like for this to be a place to do in depth reviews of books we have finished reading.
As a matter of personal opinion, I have no proiblem with discusion on this thread, as long as that disussion remains civil. If the mods do not agree, then that is fine, that's up to them.
Ill start the ball rolling with two books I recently finished.
The first is Wild Fire, a novel, by Nelson DeMille.
I guessed the plot of this book within the first 75 pages. Still there was some suspense involved. An alert reader would know that John Corey, an former NYPD officer, now working for an anti-terrorism group would come out on top. What we didn’t know was how close he would come to demise and how he would escape that demise.
This book is easy to read, mildly entertaining, but that’s about it.
John Corey, the main character, is described by DeMille as the quintessential alpha male. At times DeMille pushes the envelope with Corey to the point that it seems Corey is acting “macho” just to act macho. When I think of some of the great characters in literature – Mark Twain’s Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, Tom Joad from John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, and Augustus McCray and Woodrow Call from Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove, I realize how far DeMille has missed the mark.
If suspense with a large element of conspiracy is your cup of tea, then read Wild Fire. Otherwise I would put this effort in the category of New York Times best sellers that will soon be forgotten.
I mentioned a while back that a conservative friend had given me an autographed copy of Pat Buchanan’s latest book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.
Does anyone remember the Certs commercial, where two rolls of mints were bumped together with the claim that Certs was two mints in one - a breath mint and a candy mint? I have come to the conclusion that there are two Pat Buchanan's. One Pat Buchanan is an at times objective NBC commentator and the other a writer who gears his works to right-wing mindset.
After the first chapter, I had high hopes for Buchanan’s book. He underpins his effort with quotes from great historians like Arnold Toynbee and Will and Ariel Durant. Things take a nasty turn downward starting with chapter 2. Toynbee and the Durants are replaced by references to Michelle Malkin, - the bimbo who told Chris Matthew that John Kerry intentionally shot himself to add to his collection of Purple Hearts - Phyllis Schafly, and the right-wing think tank Hudson Institute.
Buchanan is not as good a writer as I thought. The book is a long series of anecdotes, tables and other statistical evidence. One of Buchanan’s weak points is transition. He presents information in one paragraph and the next is totally unrelated. It’s almost being lead to the edge of a cliff and pushed off.
Buchanan is also obsessed with “elites” and “elitists” – terms I have always suspected of being right-wing code words for something those on the right, like Buchanan, don’t like. Buchanan has taken the “E” word to the next level. He uses “elite” as an noun and couples it with seemingly endless modifiers.
I wish I had started counting the number of times Buchanan uses the “E” word from the beginning, but I didn’t. Some of the combinations of elite with a modifier found in the book are:
Academic Elites
British Elites
Colonial Elites (the founders)
Corporate Elites
Cultural Elites
Foreign Elites
Intellectual Elites
Latin Elites
Leadership Elites
New Class Elites
Transnational Elites
OMG, it’s like Pat Buchanan is charging solo up San Juan Hill with an army of elites coming at him from the other side.
I am going to start a new thread based on the central thesis of Buchanan’s book. Therefore I will not get into that here.
Despite this negative review, I do appreciate the fact that my friend presented me with this book. Buchanan is a figure of historical significance. He was a speech writer for Nixon, whom he still admires, and a failed Republican and reform Party Presidential candidate.
A while back, Wertz mentioned that he had read works by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I agree that it is important to find out what fringe elements, like Buchanan, think firsthand. I had not read a right slanted book since I real most of Ayn Rand’s books in the 1960s.
As a matter of personal opinion, I have no proiblem with discusion on this thread, as long as that disussion remains civil. If the mods do not agree, then that is fine, that's up to them.
Ill start the ball rolling with two books I recently finished.
*************************
The first is Wild Fire, a novel, by Nelson DeMille.
I guessed the plot of this book within the first 75 pages. Still there was some suspense involved. An alert reader would know that John Corey, an former NYPD officer, now working for an anti-terrorism group would come out on top. What we didn’t know was how close he would come to demise and how he would escape that demise.
This book is easy to read, mildly entertaining, but that’s about it.
John Corey, the main character, is described by DeMille as the quintessential alpha male. At times DeMille pushes the envelope with Corey to the point that it seems Corey is acting “macho” just to act macho. When I think of some of the great characters in literature – Mark Twain’s Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, Tom Joad from John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, and Augustus McCray and Woodrow Call from Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove, I realize how far DeMille has missed the mark.
If suspense with a large element of conspiracy is your cup of tea, then read Wild Fire. Otherwise I would put this effort in the category of New York Times best sellers that will soon be forgotten.
*************************
I mentioned a while back that a conservative friend had given me an autographed copy of Pat Buchanan’s latest book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.
Does anyone remember the Certs commercial, where two rolls of mints were bumped together with the claim that Certs was two mints in one - a breath mint and a candy mint? I have come to the conclusion that there are two Pat Buchanan's. One Pat Buchanan is an at times objective NBC commentator and the other a writer who gears his works to right-wing mindset.
After the first chapter, I had high hopes for Buchanan’s book. He underpins his effort with quotes from great historians like Arnold Toynbee and Will and Ariel Durant. Things take a nasty turn downward starting with chapter 2. Toynbee and the Durants are replaced by references to Michelle Malkin, - the bimbo who told Chris Matthew that John Kerry intentionally shot himself to add to his collection of Purple Hearts - Phyllis Schafly, and the right-wing think tank Hudson Institute.
Buchanan is not as good a writer as I thought. The book is a long series of anecdotes, tables and other statistical evidence. One of Buchanan’s weak points is transition. He presents information in one paragraph and the next is totally unrelated. It’s almost being lead to the edge of a cliff and pushed off.
Buchanan is also obsessed with “elites” and “elitists” – terms I have always suspected of being right-wing code words for something those on the right, like Buchanan, don’t like. Buchanan has taken the “E” word to the next level. He uses “elite” as an noun and couples it with seemingly endless modifiers.
I wish I had started counting the number of times Buchanan uses the “E” word from the beginning, but I didn’t. Some of the combinations of elite with a modifier found in the book are:
Academic Elites
British Elites
Colonial Elites (the founders)
Corporate Elites
Cultural Elites
Foreign Elites
Intellectual Elites
Latin Elites
Leadership Elites
New Class Elites
Transnational Elites
OMG, it’s like Pat Buchanan is charging solo up San Juan Hill with an army of elites coming at him from the other side.
I am going to start a new thread based on the central thesis of Buchanan’s book. Therefore I will not get into that here.
Despite this negative review, I do appreciate the fact that my friend presented me with this book. Buchanan is a figure of historical significance. He was a speech writer for Nixon, whom he still admires, and a failed Republican and reform Party Presidential candidate.
A while back, Wertz mentioned that he had read works by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I agree that it is important to find out what fringe elements, like Buchanan, think firsthand. I had not read a right slanted book since I real most of Ayn Rand’s books in the 1960s.
Ah, a thread on lit crit, something I can sink my fingers into.
A recent close read for background research purposes that I don't want to get into was How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren. It was originally published in 1940 and updated in 1972.
The premise of this book is that there are three levels of reading, each of them building upon the other. Most books require only the first level of reading, which is simply going through the book without trying to analyze it very much. The second level involves greater analysis of the book to truly understand what the author has tried to do. The third level is the heavy research, where one reads several books by different authors to come to a broad and deep understanding of a particular subject.
The idea of variable-speed reading is brought up. Newspapers are written to be scanned, popular novels to be tasted (my term), literary fiction to be savored (me again), and good expository works to be studied. The authors go into more depth than this, but the idea is that some writing is only worth a cursory glance while other writing demands attention.
Here's what the book is about:
Okay, so I borrowed from Bacon. Who hasn't?
The tone of the book is very academic and 1950-ish, and the use of masculine pronouns might bother some readers. Nevertheless, if one wants to learn to read deeply into a book, this is the way to do it. The questions that the reader must answer are given and quite a few tips on how to read actively. I've found with sticky notes and arrows, I can annotate as I read without destroying the book for others. Wish people who borrow library books would do that.
I bet many of us have figured out a subset of reading techniques that this book describes and encourages. The value of this work is that it takes almost all the techniques and brings them together betwee two covers. It is the reading manual that every serious student of life should have and reference from time to time, like a good style guide. The authors also bring out some interesting observations, such as the body deteriorates over time, but the mind does not if it's kept active by seeking new knowledge. New knowledge is the key idea. Doing the same old thing over and over again with the mind doesn't work so well.
This is the key for reading very difficult works too, and that's the idea: Read something over your head and try to figure it out. Learning has to happen from this effort. It can't be avoided, but granted, it is work. This sort of reading is active by necessity, so no reading in bed without your computer up and running for taking long notes and the sticky pads and arrows close by. Use a desk, sit upright gall dang it!
Another point that comes out which is highly important: Reserve judgement on an author until the author's work is fully understood. Understanding is the first thing to accomplish, then critical analysis follows.
This book covers mostly expositional writing but has sections for just about everything else. It's dated, but so what. Great books go back a very long ways, and there are always rewards for the work one does while coming to an understanding of them.
A recent close read for background research purposes that I don't want to get into was How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren. It was originally published in 1940 and updated in 1972.
The premise of this book is that there are three levels of reading, each of them building upon the other. Most books require only the first level of reading, which is simply going through the book without trying to analyze it very much. The second level involves greater analysis of the book to truly understand what the author has tried to do. The third level is the heavy research, where one reads several books by different authors to come to a broad and deep understanding of a particular subject.
The idea of variable-speed reading is brought up. Newspapers are written to be scanned, popular novels to be tasted (my term), literary fiction to be savored (me again), and good expository works to be studied. The authors go into more depth than this, but the idea is that some writing is only worth a cursory glance while other writing demands attention.
Here's what the book is about:
QUOTE
Students in school often read difficult books with the help and guidance of teachers. But for those of us who are not in school, and indeed also for those of us who are when we try to read books that are not required or assigned, our continuing education depends mainly on books alone, read without a teacher’s help. Therefore if we are disposed to go on learning and discovering, we must know how to make books teach us well. That, indeed, is the primary goal of this book (p. 15).
QUOTE
The analytical reader must ask many, and organized, questions of what he is reading. We do not want to state these questions here, since this book is mainly about reading at this level: Part Two gives its rules and tells you how to do it. We do want to emphasize here that analytical reading is always intensely active. On this level of reading, the reader grasps a book—the metaphor is apt—and works at it until the book becomes his own. Francis Bacon once remarked that ‘some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.’ Reading a book analytically is chewing and digesting it (p. 19).
Okay, so I borrowed from Bacon. Who hasn't?
The tone of the book is very academic and 1950-ish, and the use of masculine pronouns might bother some readers. Nevertheless, if one wants to learn to read deeply into a book, this is the way to do it. The questions that the reader must answer are given and quite a few tips on how to read actively. I've found with sticky notes and arrows, I can annotate as I read without destroying the book for others. Wish people who borrow library books would do that.
I bet many of us have figured out a subset of reading techniques that this book describes and encourages. The value of this work is that it takes almost all the techniques and brings them together betwee two covers. It is the reading manual that every serious student of life should have and reference from time to time, like a good style guide. The authors also bring out some interesting observations, such as the body deteriorates over time, but the mind does not if it's kept active by seeking new knowledge. New knowledge is the key idea. Doing the same old thing over and over again with the mind doesn't work so well.
This is the key for reading very difficult works too, and that's the idea: Read something over your head and try to figure it out. Learning has to happen from this effort. It can't be avoided, but granted, it is work. This sort of reading is active by necessity, so no reading in bed without your computer up and running for taking long notes and the sticky pads and arrows close by. Use a desk, sit upright gall dang it!
Another point that comes out which is highly important: Reserve judgement on an author until the author's work is fully understood. Understanding is the first thing to accomplish, then critical analysis follows.
This book covers mostly expositional writing but has sections for just about everything else. It's dated, but so what. Great books go back a very long ways, and there are always rewards for the work one does while coming to an understanding of them.
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Now here's a book that's going to start a lot of arguments. Not the best possible idea for Xmas shopping, I'd suspect . . .
As soon as you pick the book up, you can tell it's going to pull no punches. The front cover is reflective silver, and bears only the title and the name of the author. As one review said, "This is one of the few books that doesn't need a subtitle."
Full disclosure: I've been an atheist ever since I was old enough to have an opinion on the subject. I didn't exactly choose to be an atheist -- given my druthers, I'd be a universe-worshipping neoPagan -- but that's how I turned out. To a great extent, Dawkins is preaching to the choir here. I can't imagine this book swaying the opinions of many theists.
We begin with an explanation of the way in which scientists sometimes use the word "God" to mean "the way in which the universe works." (Einstein was famous for using the term in this way, although he also made it clear that he held no belief in any kind of personal God.) Dawkins makes it clear that this is strictly a metaphor, then presents data to support his contention that the vast majority of "great" scientists (Nobel Prize winners, for example) have a nontheistic worldview.
Dawkins then openly rejects the idea, suggested by Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion deal with separate areas, and do not overlap. Instead, Dawkins suggests that the existence of God (defined here in a way familiar to most theists, as a personal deity with an interest in individual human beings, as opposed to the abstract "God" of Deism) is a scientific question, which can be explored in the same way as any other such question.
We are then presented with a series of rebuttals to the classic arguments of apologists. This was pretty familiar territory to me, as I am not entirely unacquainted with the Argument from Design, Pascal's Wager, and so on.
Dawkins then goes on to speculate about why religion exists at all, eventually advancing a hypothesis that it is a "side effect" of evolutionary pressures on the development of the human brain.
In another section which held little new for me, Dawkins documents the evils of religion (perhaps better called fundamentalism) from a liberal/humanist viewpoint. More preaching to the choir, including Yours Truly.
The book ends with a suggestion that scientific awe for the universe might supply the emotional needs of religion.
Overall, there was little new here for anybody who has read a fair amount of atheist literature. Dawkins writes with wit and humor and clarity. Although it is very clear that he has little respect for religion, and vents his anger against fundamentalists, he is never insulting to what we might call "liberal" theists.
(I might mention here that Dawkins is British, and the kind of "liberal Christianity" that he has experienced in the Church of England is virtually unknown in the United States. Statements from some of the more liberal clergy in the Church of England seem to be identical to atheism, with an affection for traditional ritual and fellowship. It's clear that the high degree of religious faith in the USA, almost unique in the "free world," baffles and concerns Dawkins.)
I found much of the book interesting and amusing, but other parts of it familiar, and other parts highly speculative. My personal philosophy about the relationship between science and religion wavers between the extremes of Dawkins and Gould. I'm willing to keep science out of religious questions, as long as religion keeps out of scientific questions. (Yes, I'm looking at you, "intelligent design.")
(There's a very sad anecdote related in the book. It seems there was a fellow who was educated at Bryan College, a fundamentalist institution not too far from where I live. He had a brilliant scientific mind, and went on to win a doctorate in geology from a prestigious university. Unfortunately, his scientific education directly contradicated his fundamentalist upbringing, particularly as it related to the age of the Earth and such matters. In a dramatic symbol of his internal conflict, he went through the Bible and literally cut out all the verses which he could not reconcile with his education. At last he had to make his final choice, and decided to stay with Biblical literalism. That breaks my heart.)
Now here's a book that's going to start a lot of arguments. Not the best possible idea for Xmas shopping, I'd suspect . . .
As soon as you pick the book up, you can tell it's going to pull no punches. The front cover is reflective silver, and bears only the title and the name of the author. As one review said, "This is one of the few books that doesn't need a subtitle."
Full disclosure: I've been an atheist ever since I was old enough to have an opinion on the subject. I didn't exactly choose to be an atheist -- given my druthers, I'd be a universe-worshipping neoPagan -- but that's how I turned out. To a great extent, Dawkins is preaching to the choir here. I can't imagine this book swaying the opinions of many theists.
We begin with an explanation of the way in which scientists sometimes use the word "God" to mean "the way in which the universe works." (Einstein was famous for using the term in this way, although he also made it clear that he held no belief in any kind of personal God.) Dawkins makes it clear that this is strictly a metaphor, then presents data to support his contention that the vast majority of "great" scientists (Nobel Prize winners, for example) have a nontheistic worldview.
Dawkins then openly rejects the idea, suggested by Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion deal with separate areas, and do not overlap. Instead, Dawkins suggests that the existence of God (defined here in a way familiar to most theists, as a personal deity with an interest in individual human beings, as opposed to the abstract "God" of Deism) is a scientific question, which can be explored in the same way as any other such question.
We are then presented with a series of rebuttals to the classic arguments of apologists. This was pretty familiar territory to me, as I am not entirely unacquainted with the Argument from Design, Pascal's Wager, and so on.
Dawkins then goes on to speculate about why religion exists at all, eventually advancing a hypothesis that it is a "side effect" of evolutionary pressures on the development of the human brain.
In another section which held little new for me, Dawkins documents the evils of religion (perhaps better called fundamentalism) from a liberal/humanist viewpoint. More preaching to the choir, including Yours Truly.
The book ends with a suggestion that scientific awe for the universe might supply the emotional needs of religion.
Overall, there was little new here for anybody who has read a fair amount of atheist literature. Dawkins writes with wit and humor and clarity. Although it is very clear that he has little respect for religion, and vents his anger against fundamentalists, he is never insulting to what we might call "liberal" theists.
(I might mention here that Dawkins is British, and the kind of "liberal Christianity" that he has experienced in the Church of England is virtually unknown in the United States. Statements from some of the more liberal clergy in the Church of England seem to be identical to atheism, with an affection for traditional ritual and fellowship. It's clear that the high degree of religious faith in the USA, almost unique in the "free world," baffles and concerns Dawkins.)
I found much of the book interesting and amusing, but other parts of it familiar, and other parts highly speculative. My personal philosophy about the relationship between science and religion wavers between the extremes of Dawkins and Gould. I'm willing to keep science out of religious questions, as long as religion keeps out of scientific questions. (Yes, I'm looking at you, "intelligent design.")
(There's a very sad anecdote related in the book. It seems there was a fellow who was educated at Bryan College, a fundamentalist institution not too far from where I live. He had a brilliant scientific mind, and went on to win a doctorate in geology from a prestigious university. Unfortunately, his scientific education directly contradicated his fundamentalist upbringing, particularly as it related to the age of the Earth and such matters. In a dramatic symbol of his internal conflict, he went through the Bible and literally cut out all the verses which he could not reconcile with his education. At last he had to make his final choice, and decided to stay with Biblical literalism. That breaks my heart.)
According to SOHO Notes on my Mac in 2006 I read:
Guns Germs & Steel
The Religion
Good To Great
Gates Of Fire
The Places In Between
The Kite Runner
The Book Of Fate
Hidden Mickeys
The Last Days
The Wasp Factory
The Great Gatsby
The Beautiful & The Damned
The Illuminatus Trilogy
The Epic Of New York
New World Coming
Low Life
Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell
Freakonomics
While I'm tempted to tell you how wonderful The Places In Between was I think the most important book I read was New World Coming: The 1920s and The Making of Modern America.
The book puports to tell you about the 20s through the eyes of F Scott Fitzgerald I must have missed that part. It is a good tale and the parallels that can be drawn to "today" are astonishing. The book is a good read with few "dry spots". The author's tone an gait are conversational and he shys away from moralizing. The Tea Pot Dome scandal gets excellent coverage. H.L. Menken is quoted often. ("No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people").
Now it's fairly clear throughout that Nathan Miller is no Republican, and no fan of them - he keeps it mostly under his hat. Also if you're coming into this book with very good knowledge of the 20s Miller's approach will seem off kilter, slightly odd and somewhat broad. However, it isn't. This is not a history tome. This is a conversation about the 20s told anecdotally and well.
This is the sort of book I buy for my friends and insist: Read This!
Guns Germs & Steel
The Religion
Good To Great
Gates Of Fire
The Places In Between
The Kite Runner
The Book Of Fate
Hidden Mickeys
The Last Days
The Wasp Factory
The Great Gatsby
The Beautiful & The Damned
The Illuminatus Trilogy
The Epic Of New York
New World Coming
Low Life
Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell
Freakonomics
While I'm tempted to tell you how wonderful The Places In Between was I think the most important book I read was New World Coming: The 1920s and The Making of Modern America.
The book puports to tell you about the 20s through the eyes of F Scott Fitzgerald I must have missed that part. It is a good tale and the parallels that can be drawn to "today" are astonishing. The book is a good read with few "dry spots". The author's tone an gait are conversational and he shys away from moralizing. The Tea Pot Dome scandal gets excellent coverage. H.L. Menken is quoted often. ("No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people").
Now it's fairly clear throughout that Nathan Miller is no Republican, and no fan of them - he keeps it mostly under his hat. Also if you're coming into this book with very good knowledge of the 20s Miller's approach will seem off kilter, slightly odd and somewhat broad. However, it isn't. This is not a history tome. This is a conversation about the 20s told anecdotally and well.
This is the sort of book I buy for my friends and insist: Read This!
QUOTE(BoF @ Jan 9 2007, 02:13 PM) 
We already have a thread, which has been dormant for a few months, about books members are reading. I have a different vision for this thread. I would like for this to be a place to do in depth reviews of books we have finished reading.
As a matter of personal opinion, I have no proiblem with discusion on this thread, as long as that disussion remains civil. If the mods do not agree, then that is fine, that's up to them.
Ill start the ball rolling with two books I recently finished.
*************************
The first is Wild Fire, a novel, by Nelson DeMille.
I guessed the plot of this book within the first 75 pages. Still there was some suspense involved. An alert reader would know that John Corey, an former NYPD officer, now working for an anti-terrorism group would come out on top. What we didn’t know was how close he would come to demise and how he would escape that demise.
This book is easy to read, mildly entertaining, but that’s about it.
John Corey, the main character, is described by DeMille as the quintessential alpha male. At times DeMille pushes the envelope with Corey to the point that it seems Corey is acting “macho” just to act macho. When I think of some of the great characters in literature – Mark Twain’s Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, Tom Joad from John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, and Augustus McCray and Woodrow Call from Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove, I realize how far DeMille has missed the mark.
If suspense with a large element of conspiracy is your cup of tea, then read Wild Fire. Otherwise I would put this effort in the category of New York Times best sellers that will soon be forgotten.
*************************
I mentioned a while back that a conservative friend had given me an autographed copy of Pat Buchanan’s latest book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.
Does anyone remember the Certs commercial, where two rolls of mints were bumped together with the claim that Certs was two mints in one - a breath mint and a candy mint? I have come to the conclusion that there are two Pat Buchanan's. One Pat Buchanan is an at times objective NBC commentator and the other a writer who gears his works to right-wing mindset.
After the first chapter, I had high hopes for Buchanan’s book. He underpins his effort with quotes from great historians like Arnold Toynbee and Will and Ariel Durant. Things take a nasty turn downward starting with chapter 2. Toynbee and the Durants are replaced by references to Michelle Malkin, - the bimbo who told Chris Matthew that John Kerry intentionally shot himself to add to his collection of Purple Hearts - Phyllis Schafly, and the right-wing think tank Hudson Institute.
Buchanan is not as good a writer as I thought. The book is a long series of anecdotes, tables and other statistical evidence. One of Buchanan’s weak points is transition. He presents information in one paragraph and the next is totally unrelated. It’s almost being lead to the edge of a cliff and pushed off.
Buchanan is also obsessed with “elites” and “elitists” – terms I have always suspected of being right-wing code words for something those on the right, like Buchanan, don’t like. Buchanan has taken the “E” word to the next level. He uses “elite” as an noun and couples it with seemingly endless modifiers.
I wish I had started counting the number of times Buchanan uses the “E” word from the beginning, but I didn’t. Some of the combinations of elite with a modifier found in the book are:
Academic Elites
British Elites
Colonial Elites (the founders)
Corporate Elites
Cultural Elites
Foreign Elites
Intellectual Elites
Latin Elites
Leadership Elites
New Class Elites
Transnational Elites
OMG, it’s like Pat Buchanan is charging solo up San Juan Hill with an army of elites coming at him from the other side.
I am going to start a new thread based on the central thesis of Buchanan’s book. Therefore I will not get into that here.
Despite this negative review, I do appreciate the fact that my friend presented me with this book. Buchanan is a figure of historical significance. He was a speech writer for Nixon, whom he still admires, and a failed Republican and reform Party Presidential candidate.
A while back, Wertz mentioned that he had read works by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I agree that it is important to find out what fringe elements, like Buchanan, think firsthand. I had not read a right slanted book since I real most of Ayn Rand’s books in the 1960s.
I am shocked that anyone else noticed this about Pat Buchanan. Since I've never read one of his books, I have only picked up his "elite" overuse during television interviews! Amen!!
I'm on a kick that involves reading about reading, cuz to write good stories one needs to know how others do it. A ton of books are out there about the writing process along with lots of dos and don'ts. So, it's refreshing to read about reading by an author who has published an impressive amount of fiction and whose name is Francine Prose. Prose writes about prose in:
Reading Like a Writer: A Guide for People Who Love Books and for Those Who Want to Write Them
© 2006 by Prose
HarperCollins
Prose reminds me of the best of the best instructors I had in college regarding literature and the creative writing process. She has for a good part of her career done creative writing workshops and college classes, and in moments of reflection and self-discovery, she writes about how some of the things she taught in the past are simply wrong. Exceptions to every rule abound in great literature. Show not tell? Not on your life if the telling is masterful. Don't use dialog as a replacement for exposition? Ha! Do it with artful flair and you're doing it right. Avoid one-sentence paragraphs?
Poppycock, but do it where the story demands it, not just to make a cheap impact (as done here).
As with just about all books of this nature, Prose uses passages from other great writers to illustrate her points, or as often, to contradict what she has just established. This is a book where the reader discovers right along with the author. The nonfiction style is a bit annoying at first until one realizes that Prose has sculpted her book through numerous revisions to come up with the final piece. The style is not an accident or a mistake. Prose is trying to make a point about literature, a very grand point: Not one word has gone unstudied, not one punctuation mark, not a single paragraph break. What one sees between the two covers of the published book represents a mountain of paper, electronic or physical, and uncounted hours of decision-making or even suffering over some detail.
Another author on writing, a publisher by trade, commented in his book about a lazy thing an otherwise good author once did in her book. That struck me as being wrong, and now I know why. There is no such thing as an otherwise good author ever being lazy. What was done was done for a very good reason, and it's up to the reader to understand that the author is trying to communicate something. What might it be? What other hints are there that something bigger is up with this? Why did style change?
One of the criticisms about Prose's book is that not all readers want to be writers, something that she has admitted during a podcast interview. However, to better understand how a writer creates makes for better reading, much like understanding the painter's technique leads to a greater appreciation of the art. Or not, everyone's a little different, some a lot different. Prose doesn't write for everyone because that would be writing for nobody.
This is a book for those interested in great literature and well-crafted modern commercial fiction. For those readers who simply wish to be entertained, this isn't for them. Who cares how the work was crafted to bring about the satisfaction? That is truly up to the writer to figure out. But if such a reader somehow becomes interested in the craft and great works of art, this is the book to read and study, this is the book to make love grow.
Prose offers a list of "books to be read immediately" at the end, another common practice but not ever entitled with so much tongue in the cheek. She has an intriguing sense of wit, which might come from loving so many great books.
Reading Like a Writer: A Guide for People Who Love Books and for Those Who Want to Write Them
© 2006 by Prose
HarperCollins
Prose reminds me of the best of the best instructors I had in college regarding literature and the creative writing process. She has for a good part of her career done creative writing workshops and college classes, and in moments of reflection and self-discovery, she writes about how some of the things she taught in the past are simply wrong. Exceptions to every rule abound in great literature. Show not tell? Not on your life if the telling is masterful. Don't use dialog as a replacement for exposition? Ha! Do it with artful flair and you're doing it right. Avoid one-sentence paragraphs?
Poppycock, but do it where the story demands it, not just to make a cheap impact (as done here).
As with just about all books of this nature, Prose uses passages from other great writers to illustrate her points, or as often, to contradict what she has just established. This is a book where the reader discovers right along with the author. The nonfiction style is a bit annoying at first until one realizes that Prose has sculpted her book through numerous revisions to come up with the final piece. The style is not an accident or a mistake. Prose is trying to make a point about literature, a very grand point: Not one word has gone unstudied, not one punctuation mark, not a single paragraph break. What one sees between the two covers of the published book represents a mountain of paper, electronic or physical, and uncounted hours of decision-making or even suffering over some detail.
Another author on writing, a publisher by trade, commented in his book about a lazy thing an otherwise good author once did in her book. That struck me as being wrong, and now I know why. There is no such thing as an otherwise good author ever being lazy. What was done was done for a very good reason, and it's up to the reader to understand that the author is trying to communicate something. What might it be? What other hints are there that something bigger is up with this? Why did style change?
One of the criticisms about Prose's book is that not all readers want to be writers, something that she has admitted during a podcast interview. However, to better understand how a writer creates makes for better reading, much like understanding the painter's technique leads to a greater appreciation of the art. Or not, everyone's a little different, some a lot different. Prose doesn't write for everyone because that would be writing for nobody.
This is a book for those interested in great literature and well-crafted modern commercial fiction. For those readers who simply wish to be entertained, this isn't for them. Who cares how the work was crafted to bring about the satisfaction? That is truly up to the writer to figure out. But if such a reader somehow becomes interested in the craft and great works of art, this is the book to read and study, this is the book to make love grow.
Prose offers a list of "books to be read immediately" at the end, another common practice but not ever entitled with so much tongue in the cheek. She has an intriguing sense of wit, which might come from loving so many great books.
I have a couple of books to recommend:
‘The Red Tent’ by Anita Diamant. She tells the story of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob in the book of Genesis in the Bible, from the first person narrative. It places an interesting perspective on this one little chapter so easily forgotten. But it is not a Bible study. It’s a book about ancient tradition and female relationships...a part of history that has been universally ignored in general. It is richly written and the best novel that I have read in a very long time….and that is saying a lot (I read about 40 books a year).
Another, completely different type of read that I definitely recommend is 'Cobra II'. I’m only part-way through it, but it is enlightening. In defense of this administration (though undeserved), I’ll acknowledge that other wars have gone badly, much is up to chance and awful decisions are made in every conflict, to include the ones that go well. If Iraq had gone well this book would have never been written. Gross buffoonery happens everywhere and it is seldom so richly highlighted. However, since the conflict did not go well the extraordinary amount of sheer ineptitude…exactly how wrong they were, and why is staggering. For (small) instance, they actually plans to hand out miniature American flags in one of the worst insurgent areas of Iraq. They envisioned crowds cheering and waving these little flags for photo ops. It goes on and on and on…
‘The Red Tent’ by Anita Diamant. She tells the story of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob in the book of Genesis in the Bible, from the first person narrative. It places an interesting perspective on this one little chapter so easily forgotten. But it is not a Bible study. It’s a book about ancient tradition and female relationships...a part of history that has been universally ignored in general. It is richly written and the best novel that I have read in a very long time….and that is saying a lot (I read about 40 books a year).
Another, completely different type of read that I definitely recommend is 'Cobra II'. I’m only part-way through it, but it is enlightening. In defense of this administration (though undeserved), I’ll acknowledge that other wars have gone badly, much is up to chance and awful decisions are made in every conflict, to include the ones that go well. If Iraq had gone well this book would have never been written. Gross buffoonery happens everywhere and it is seldom so richly highlighted. However, since the conflict did not go well the extraordinary amount of sheer ineptitude…exactly how wrong they were, and why is staggering. For (small) instance, they actually plans to hand out miniature American flags in one of the worst insurgent areas of Iraq. They envisioned crowds cheering and waving these little flags for photo ops. It goes on and on and on…
Some authors are plain good story tellers. Michael Connelly is one of these people, and his Echo Park (2006 Little-Brown) comes through with the interesting detective character, Harry Bosche. Bosche is old-school, a tough and smart veteran of the LAPD who doesn't play by the book regularly. In this story, his known behavior works against him during the intriguing plot that snakes and flips right up to the end.
His antagonist is a serial murderer, although Bosch is sometimes his own worse enemy. He doesn't have much luck with his on-again off-again romance because, well, he has a serious character flaw. Let's leave it at that. He also has a wry sense of humor reminiscent of the Lennie Briscoe character in the Law & Order TV series. This left me wondering what came first, Connelly's Bosch or Briscoe? They could be brothers. I'll put my bet on Bosch for now.
The murderer is bad, very very bad. It's almost inconceivable how bad he is, and the story doesn't reveal this until the ending climax. It's good form, as is the rest of the plot with its lesser mysteries and conflicts. This book is part of a series, yet it stands on its own. That's another quality of a good story teller, giving just enough background information so the reader is never lost in the author's assumptions.
Thematically the story is pretty thin: Bad guys work themselves up through lesser crimes to the really big deals; Life is tough, so you have to stick together; The LAPD has corruption in it; Sometimes you don't know who to trust; God, does rotten flesh stink or what? Oh yeah, women like men who are stable. And don't trust strangers. It's probably not a good idea to drink and speed-dial either.
This is an easy book to read, a page-turner and a satisfying entertainment novel. It doesn't try to be anything else, like Bosch doesn't pretend to be anyone else. That's a big reason why he's a likeable guy and why the reader, like Bosch's occasional lover, wishes he'd take fewer chances. But then, where'd the story be?
His antagonist is a serial murderer, although Bosch is sometimes his own worse enemy. He doesn't have much luck with his on-again off-again romance because, well, he has a serious character flaw. Let's leave it at that. He also has a wry sense of humor reminiscent of the Lennie Briscoe character in the Law & Order TV series. This left me wondering what came first, Connelly's Bosch or Briscoe? They could be brothers. I'll put my bet on Bosch for now.
The murderer is bad, very very bad. It's almost inconceivable how bad he is, and the story doesn't reveal this until the ending climax. It's good form, as is the rest of the plot with its lesser mysteries and conflicts. This book is part of a series, yet it stands on its own. That's another quality of a good story teller, giving just enough background information so the reader is never lost in the author's assumptions.
Thematically the story is pretty thin: Bad guys work themselves up through lesser crimes to the really big deals; Life is tough, so you have to stick together; The LAPD has corruption in it; Sometimes you don't know who to trust; God, does rotten flesh stink or what? Oh yeah, women like men who are stable. And don't trust strangers. It's probably not a good idea to drink and speed-dial either.
This is an easy book to read, a page-turner and a satisfying entertainment novel. It doesn't try to be anything else, like Bosch doesn't pretend to be anyone else. That's a big reason why he's a likeable guy and why the reader, like Bosch's occasional lover, wishes he'd take fewer chances. But then, where'd the story be?
The End of Faith; Sam Harris
This book is more than just an "I hate religion" book. To be honest, that's what I was expecting when I started it. Harris did an amazing job of attacking the literal sillyness and perversity of Christianity and Islam. In the case of the former, highlighting how seemingly sensible people could kill women for being witches and for bringing about the inquisition. We also see this in modern times as birth control funding in high AIDS ravaged countries has been cut, not due to solid scientific studies, but rather, due to private whims that hold that condoms aren't good for people to use. Harris's section on Islam is equally biting. Harris retold of how an international beauty pagent was held in a predominantly muslim country. The result? Hundreds of people were trampled to death over the severe issue of women in bikinis. To Harris, we need to move on from the antiquated idea of religion and to live be reason and experience along, though he is very much open to mysticism.
The section on mysticism was very interesting as Harris slams moral relativism and states that mystics are rationalists in a way. He also cites research studies regarding meditation and eastern psychology. Harris doesn't have a problem with religion as long as it is "benign." To him, this is the ability to live in a largely secular culture where the extremes of your given religion(i.e.-Old Testament suggestions of stoning people who curse their parents, sow different seeds in the field, etc.) are largely ignored on purpose. Though Harris points out that it is more or less due to the criticism of these anachronistic beliefs that have led us to these points than the desire of organized religion to change itself. Harris calls for a world government, one actually vested with power to help solve the world's problems. Unfortunately, his call for that will send many conspiracy minded folks into a frenzy.
The largest surprise for me was when he had a small section criticizing the works of Noam Chomsky and the war in Iraq. To Chomsky, a child's death, no matter what the intent, is an evil and a wrong. To Harris, there is a distinction between the two and ignoring it is the greater evil so to speak. Alarms went off in my head about this as Harris also seemed to approve of the assertion of the right to torture those who a part of Al-Qaeda and who may know more than they let on while we have them in custody. Harris's brand of rationalism is an interesting one with these views. I do agree that militant Islam is to blame and that what the hijackers really needed was a good dose of skepticism in their education. Perhaps a liberal reading of Voltaire, David Hume, and Tom Paine's mockery of faith would have done them some good instead of engineering textbooks.
This book is more than just an "I hate religion" book. To be honest, that's what I was expecting when I started it. Harris did an amazing job of attacking the literal sillyness and perversity of Christianity and Islam. In the case of the former, highlighting how seemingly sensible people could kill women for being witches and for bringing about the inquisition. We also see this in modern times as birth control funding in high AIDS ravaged countries has been cut, not due to solid scientific studies, but rather, due to private whims that hold that condoms aren't good for people to use. Harris's section on Islam is equally biting. Harris retold of how an international beauty pagent was held in a predominantly muslim country. The result? Hundreds of people were trampled to death over the severe issue of women in bikinis. To Harris, we need to move on from the antiquated idea of religion and to live be reason and experience along, though he is very much open to mysticism.
The section on mysticism was very interesting as Harris slams moral relativism and states that mystics are rationalists in a way. He also cites research studies regarding meditation and eastern psychology. Harris doesn't have a problem with religion as long as it is "benign." To him, this is the ability to live in a largely secular culture where the extremes of your given religion(i.e.-Old Testament suggestions of stoning people who curse their parents, sow different seeds in the field, etc.) are largely ignored on purpose. Though Harris points out that it is more or less due to the criticism of these anachronistic beliefs that have led us to these points than the desire of organized religion to change itself. Harris calls for a world government, one actually vested with power to help solve the world's problems. Unfortunately, his call for that will send many conspiracy minded folks into a frenzy.
The largest surprise for me was when he had a small section criticizing the works of Noam Chomsky and the war in Iraq. To Chomsky, a child's death, no matter what the intent, is an evil and a wrong. To Harris, there is a distinction between the two and ignoring it is the greater evil so to speak. Alarms went off in my head about this as Harris also seemed to approve of the assertion of the right to torture those who a part of Al-Qaeda and who may know more than they let on while we have them in custody. Harris's brand of rationalism is an interesting one with these views. I do agree that militant Islam is to blame and that what the hijackers really needed was a good dose of skepticism in their education. Perhaps a liberal reading of Voltaire, David Hume, and Tom Paine's mockery of faith would have done them some good instead of engineering textbooks.
For any Civil War buffs out there:
Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson: It is a really good read for historical non-fiction. It begins by setting the political dynamics of mid-19th century and flows right into the crux of battle and home front throughout the years of the war.
Killer Angels by Michael Shaara: It is a pulitzer-prize winning, dramatic re-creation of one of the most unforgettable and pivotal battles of the Civil War - Gettysburg. It's a tear-jerker, so beware. Interestingly, when the novel was published America wasn't in the right frame of mind to receive it. Vietnam had soured our desire for war stories. However, years after it was published (and sadly, after the author passed away) it received the much-deserved widespread readership.
Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson: It is a really good read for historical non-fiction. It begins by setting the political dynamics of mid-19th century and flows right into the crux of battle and home front throughout the years of the war.
Killer Angels by Michael Shaara: It is a pulitzer-prize winning, dramatic re-creation of one of the most unforgettable and pivotal battles of the Civil War - Gettysburg. It's a tear-jerker, so beware. Interestingly, when the novel was published America wasn't in the right frame of mind to receive it. Vietnam had soured our desire for war stories. However, years after it was published (and sadly, after the author passed away) it received the much-deserved widespread readership.
I’m almost finished with ‘East of Eden’ by Steinbeck. I read this book long ago, but had forgotten how very phenomenally good it is. Much of the human details were lost with me the first time I read it. I had forgotten that it was half biography, half fictitious novel. The first time I read it, I was engrossed with the story line. This time, already knowing what happens, I was engrossed with the prose and rich historical details of his writing. An excerpt:
QUOTE
For about twenty years Mr Fenchel had done hand tailoring in Salinas. He was short and round and he had an accent that made you laugh. All day he sat cross-legged on his table in the little shop on Alisal Street and in the evening he walked home to his small white house far out on Central avenue. He was forever painting his house and the white picket fence in front of it. Nobody had given his accent a thought until the war came along, but suddenly we knew. It was German. We had our own personal German.
Snip
The Home Guards wouldn’t take him in. They didn’t want a spy knowing their secret plans for defending Salinas. And who wanted to wear a suit made by an enemy? Mr Fenchel sat all day on his table and he didn’t have anything to do, so he basted and ripped and sewed and ripped on the same piece of cloth over and over.
We used every cruelty we could think of on Mr Fenchel. He was our German... He passed our house every day, and there had been a time when he spoke to every man and woman and child and dog, and everyone had answered. Now, no one spoke to him, and I can see now in my mind his loneliness and his face full of hurt pride.
Snip
We were too young to do a good job on Mr Fenchel. That took strong men…about thirty of them. One Saturday night they collected in a bar and marched in a column of fours out Central avenue, saying “Hup! Hup!” in unison. They tore down Mr Fenchel’s white picket fence and burned the front of his house. No Kaiser-loving son of a (expletive) was going to get away with it with us. And then Salinas could hold up its head with San Jose. Of course that made Watsonville get busy. They tarred and feathered a Pole they thought was a German. He had an accent.
Snip
The Home Guards wouldn’t take him in. They didn’t want a spy knowing their secret plans for defending Salinas. And who wanted to wear a suit made by an enemy? Mr Fenchel sat all day on his table and he didn’t have anything to do, so he basted and ripped and sewed and ripped on the same piece of cloth over and over.
We used every cruelty we could think of on Mr Fenchel. He was our German... He passed our house every day, and there had been a time when he spoke to every man and woman and child and dog, and everyone had answered. Now, no one spoke to him, and I can see now in my mind his loneliness and his face full of hurt pride.
Snip
We were too young to do a good job on Mr Fenchel. That took strong men…about thirty of them. One Saturday night they collected in a bar and marched in a column of fours out Central avenue, saying “Hup! Hup!” in unison. They tore down Mr Fenchel’s white picket fence and burned the front of his house. No Kaiser-loving son of a (expletive) was going to get away with it with us. And then Salinas could hold up its head with San Jose. Of course that made Watsonville get busy. They tarred and feathered a Pole they thought was a German. He had an accent.
I just finished Cujo by Stephen King. I saw the movie years ago, so I remembered bits and pieces of it as I read. For those who don't know, Cujo is a 200 ibs. St. Bernard who was bitten on the nose. Cujo's farm life is disturbed as a woman and her four year old son are driving onto the farm to have the car fixed, only to have it die and the owner of the farm/mechanic shop to be gone. The temperatures sore and Cujo holds the mother and child hostage.
I really enjoyed this book, it was very bloody, especially when it detailed how Cujo munched on the three people that he killed. Stephen King is an excellent writer and I love his early works. This one was a definite treat.
I really enjoyed this book, it was very bloody, especially when it detailed how Cujo munched on the three people that he killed. Stephen King is an excellent writer and I love his early works. This one was a definite treat.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 16 2007, 10:01 AM)
I just finished Cujo by Stephen King. I saw the movie years ago, so I remembered bits and pieces of it as I read. For those who don't know, Cujo is a 200 ibs. St. Bernard who was bitten on the nose. Cujo's farm life is disturbed as a woman and her four year old son are driving onto the farm to have the car fixed, only to have it die and the owner of the farm/mechanic shop to be gone. The temperatures sore and Cujo holds the mother and child hostage.
I really enjoyed this book, it was very bloody, especially when it detailed how Cujo munched on the three people that he killed. Stephen King is an excellent writer and I love his early works. This one was a definite treat.
I never read Cujo, but I used to be a Stephen King fan long ago. He is a gifted and prolific writer. In fact, he was so good I had recurring nightmares so bizarre and horrendous that I promised God to never read another one of his horror books again if the awful dreams would just go away. I have never had a nightmare since (honestly, and it has been nearly 20 years). But, I do like his lighter material (the 'Green Mile' was good, as well as 'Hearts in Atlantis').
I also read a book he wrote on the subject of writing, entitled 'About Writing' (I think). He said he was so stoned and drunk back in his early writing days he can't even remember writing 'Cujo' (though he too likes the book).
I’ve delayed posting book reviews for a while. I’ve finished several that are worth commenting on this year.
H. W. Brands
The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin
Doubleday, 2000
Anchor paperback edition. 716 pages + indexes, etc.
There were two major biographies of Franklin published in this decade. One of those was by Brands and the other by Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, 2003. I have the Isaacson book, but I haven’t read it yet. I also have a companion volume by Isaacson A Benjamin Franklin Reader which I’ve used for reference.
Sleeper read the Isaacson volume, calling it one of the better Franklin biographies he had read. Quite frankly I don’t know which of the two is better. I invite Sleeper to do a review of the Isaacson book on this thread.
I chose the Brands biography, because it is more detailed. Brands follows Franklin from his birth in Boston through his rather full life to his death in Philadelphia. He does an admirable job of setting Franklin within his times and painting the evolution of Franklin as a person.
Particularly interesting is Franklin’s episode in the cockpit before the privy council.
Of major interest is Franklin’s attitude toward religion. From near atheism, Franklin evolved into a deist. In the year before his death Franklin wrote this:
Trying to use Franklin to prove a point about the Founders’ thoughts on religion, is useless. The statement above, published after his death is final, but not necessarily definitive.
The strength of Brand’s book – detail – is equally its weakness. At times Franklin is lost in background detail causing the book to become cumbersome. In those chapters on the French and Indian War, Brands spends numerous pages setting the stage before bringing Franklin on – necessary, yes; tedious, yes again.
H. W. Brands
Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times
Doubleday, 2005
560 pages + sources, annotated bibliography and index
I came away from this book with mixed thoughts and emotions about Andrew Jackson.
I admire Jackson as a survivor! He survived small pox, being hit in the head with a sword while still a teenager, being shot in a duel, a fight with the Bentons of Missouri and an assassination attempt where not one but two guns (later found to work just fine) misfired.
On the other hand Jackson was a brawler, a racist, a slave owner and slave trader. He hired overseers who practiced cruelty to slaves.
Jackson, however, had power. Even on his death bed in 1845, he had influence.
That influence lasted beyond Jackson’s death until the Civil War.
If detail is both the virtue and vice of Brands’s Franklin biography, lack of detail is the downfall of the Jackson volume. He hits the high points – Biddle and the bank, South Carolina and nullification, but uses only about 100 pages to cover eight years of Jackson’s presidency.
I like Bands’s summation about Jackson’s popularity.
Are there parallels in history? I think so. The above paragraph seems to explain much of Bush’s appeal in 2004.
Note: I noticed that aevans176 reported reading this book a while back. His take is probably different than mine, but I invite him to share his opinion here.
Douglas Southall Freeman
George Washington: The Young Washington, Vol 1 , 1948
Scribners 1948
437 pages + appendices
Damn Chris Matthews anyway. About the time we celebrated Presidents Day, Matthews lamented the fact that we no longer celebrated the day as George Washington’s Birthday. His logic, which I can’t fault, is that some presidents – he didn’t call any names – don’t deserve to be honored.
Although I have read biographies of other presidents, including Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt , Truman, Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, I had never been able to get into Washington. So, in February I made a late New Year’s resolution to read the granddaddy of all scholarly Washington biographies, Douglas Southall Freeman’s seven volume set. Note: Freeman died after publication of Vol .6. Two of his research assistants, John Alexander Carroll and Mary Wells Ashworth completed the concluding Vol. 7 for Freeman
The first problem I encountered with Freeman’s Washington was getting the books. It has long been out of print, and copies go for a premium from amazon.com’s marketplace sellers. Still, I thought it a good investment, not just for the knowledge, but as a nice gift in my will to the TCU library.
As I write, I am half way through Vol. 2, also on the young Washington.
Before Freeman, much we knew about was myth (the cherry tree) or undue reverence that made Washington, the human being unapproachable. There’s an underlying sense of humor in Freeeman’s writing. He writes about the problems in dealing with Washington. One problem was what to call him. Freeman tells us that one early biographer was calling Washington ”the general “ when he was only ten. As Freemnan points out, Washington was a boy, not a general, at ten. Freeman chose to call him George in his younger years.
Like Brands in Franklin, Freeman takes time to set the background for Washington’s birth. He discusses social and domestic life, amusements, intellectual life, religion, communications, towns, commerce government and population.
Most important perhaps was the class system in the Northern Neck of Virginia.
● Planters
● Small Landowners
● Merchants
● Sailors
● Frontiersmen
● Servants
● Convicts
● Slaves
Freeman also provides a rather long series of three and difficult to read appendices about the “Northern Neck Proprietary to 1745>’
There’s plenty of background material,
Vol. 1 of Young Washington takes him from birth in 1732 to 1754. Like Jackson, Washington survived smallpox as a youth. The volume ends with Washington’s failed attempt to capture Fort DuQuesne as a young commissioned officer in the Virginia Regiment. The problems of getting supplies, imposing discipline on soldiers at reads like a comedy of errors.
For those who want to insist that the intended to found a Christian nation, young Washington, like Franklin, offers little encouragement.
One of the stories Freeman tells that brings young Washington into the pale of common humanity. There was a young woman, named Betsy – of whom little is known – who twice rejected Washington’s amorous notions, the second time with such finality that he didn’t try again. It seems to happen to all of us.
I’ve spent the afternoon writing this. Reading is such a great escape. I’ve enjoyed the company of Benjamin, Andrew and George more than I would Mel Gibson, Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton.
When I finish Vol. 2 of Freeman’s Washington, I’m going to finish TomDeLay’s No Retreat, No Surrender. I’ve finish about 30 of 190 pages and so far it does nothing to enhance my opinion of DeLay.
I received Saul Cornell’s, A Well regulated Militia, in the mail today. It’s less than 250 pages an should be much more instructive than DeLay’s book.
H. W. Brands
The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin
Doubleday, 2000
Anchor paperback edition. 716 pages + indexes, etc.
There were two major biographies of Franklin published in this decade. One of those was by Brands and the other by Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, 2003. I have the Isaacson book, but I haven’t read it yet. I also have a companion volume by Isaacson A Benjamin Franklin Reader which I’ve used for reference.
Sleeper read the Isaacson volume, calling it one of the better Franklin biographies he had read. Quite frankly I don’t know which of the two is better. I invite Sleeper to do a review of the Isaacson book on this thread.
I chose the Brands biography, because it is more detailed. Brands follows Franklin from his birth in Boston through his rather full life to his death in Philadelphia. He does an admirable job of setting Franklin within his times and painting the evolution of Franklin as a person.
Particularly interesting is Franklin’s episode in the cockpit before the privy council.
Of major interest is Franklin’s attitude toward religion. From near atheism, Franklin evolved into a deist. In the year before his death Franklin wrote this:
QUOTE
Here is my creed. I believe in one god, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence….As to Jesus of Nazareth…I think the system of morals and his system of religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see….and I have with moist Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity. Page 707.
Trying to use Franklin to prove a point about the Founders’ thoughts on religion, is useless. The statement above, published after his death is final, but not necessarily definitive.
The strength of Brand’s book – detail – is equally its weakness. At times Franklin is lost in background detail causing the book to become cumbersome. In those chapters on the French and Indian War, Brands spends numerous pages setting the stage before bringing Franklin on – necessary, yes; tedious, yes again.
******************************
H. W. Brands
Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times
Doubleday, 2005
560 pages + sources, annotated bibliography and index
I came away from this book with mixed thoughts and emotions about Andrew Jackson.
I admire Jackson as a survivor! He survived small pox, being hit in the head with a sword while still a teenager, being shot in a duel, a fight with the Bentons of Missouri and an assassination attempt where not one but two guns (later found to work just fine) misfired.
On the other hand Jackson was a brawler, a racist, a slave owner and slave trader. He hired overseers who practiced cruelty to slaves.
Jackson, however, had power. Even on his death bed in 1845, he had influence.
QUOTE
He [Sam Houston] wanted to be the one to tell Jackson that Texas was part of the union….On the road they discovered they were too late…the old general had died at six o’clock. Pages 557-558
That influence lasted beyond Jackson’s death until the Civil War.
If detail is both the virtue and vice of Brands’s Franklin biography, lack of detail is the downfall of the Jackson volume. He hits the high points – Biddle and the bank, South Carolina and nullification, but uses only about 100 pages to cover eight years of Jackson’s presidency.
I like Bands’s summation about Jackson’s popularity.
QUOTE
Jackson’s appeal to the American people was the appeal of the chieftain to the tribe. They loved him because he was their protector, their hero. But they also loved him because he embodied their hopes and fears, their passions and prejudices, their insight and their ignorance, better than anyone before him. Page 556.
Are there parallels in history? I think so. The above paragraph seems to explain much of Bush’s appeal in 2004.
Note: I noticed that aevans176 reported reading this book a while back. His take is probably different than mine, but I invite him to share his opinion here.
******************************
Douglas Southall Freeman
George Washington: The Young Washington, Vol 1 , 1948
Scribners 1948
437 pages + appendices
Damn Chris Matthews anyway. About the time we celebrated Presidents Day, Matthews lamented the fact that we no longer celebrated the day as George Washington’s Birthday. His logic, which I can’t fault, is that some presidents – he didn’t call any names – don’t deserve to be honored.
Although I have read biographies of other presidents, including Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt , Truman, Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, I had never been able to get into Washington. So, in February I made a late New Year’s resolution to read the granddaddy of all scholarly Washington biographies, Douglas Southall Freeman’s seven volume set. Note: Freeman died after publication of Vol .6. Two of his research assistants, John Alexander Carroll and Mary Wells Ashworth completed the concluding Vol. 7 for Freeman
The first problem I encountered with Freeman’s Washington was getting the books. It has long been out of print, and copies go for a premium from amazon.com’s marketplace sellers. Still, I thought it a good investment, not just for the knowledge, but as a nice gift in my will to the TCU library.
As I write, I am half way through Vol. 2, also on the young Washington.
Before Freeman, much we knew about was myth (the cherry tree) or undue reverence that made Washington, the human being unapproachable. There’s an underlying sense of humor in Freeeman’s writing. He writes about the problems in dealing with Washington. One problem was what to call him. Freeman tells us that one early biographer was calling Washington ”the general “ when he was only ten. As Freemnan points out, Washington was a boy, not a general, at ten. Freeman chose to call him George in his younger years.
Like Brands in Franklin, Freeman takes time to set the background for Washington’s birth. He discusses social and domestic life, amusements, intellectual life, religion, communications, towns, commerce government and population.
Most important perhaps was the class system in the Northern Neck of Virginia.
● Planters
● Small Landowners
● Merchants
● Sailors
● Frontiersmen
● Servants
● Convicts
● Slaves
Freeman also provides a rather long series of three and difficult to read appendices about the “Northern Neck Proprietary to 1745>’
There’s plenty of background material,
Vol. 1 of Young Washington takes him from birth in 1732 to 1754. Like Jackson, Washington survived smallpox as a youth. The volume ends with Washington’s failed attempt to capture Fort DuQuesne as a young commissioned officer in the Virginia Regiment. The problems of getting supplies, imposing discipline on soldiers at reads like a comedy of errors.
For those who want to insist that the intended to found a Christian nation, young Washington, like Franklin, offers little encouragement.
QUOTE
Such religious instruction George received in his youth was of a sort to turn his mind toward conduct rather than creed. He was beginning on his own account to reason that there were certain principles of honesty and fair-play by which man ought to live, Page, 196, Vol 1.
One of the stories Freeman tells that brings young Washington into the pale of common humanity. There was a young woman, named Betsy – of whom little is known – who twice rejected Washington’s amorous notions, the second time with such finality that he didn’t try again. It seems to happen to all of us.
******************************
I’ve spent the afternoon writing this. Reading is such a great escape. I’ve enjoyed the company of Benjamin, Andrew and George more than I would Mel Gibson, Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton.
When I finish Vol. 2 of Freeman’s Washington, I’m going to finish TomDeLay’s No Retreat, No Surrender. I’ve finish about 30 of 190 pages and so far it does nothing to enhance my opinion of DeLay.
I received Saul Cornell’s, A Well regulated Militia, in the mail today. It’s less than 250 pages an should be much more instructive than DeLay’s book.
I'm currently reading Michelle Malkin's book Unhinged: Liberals Gone Wild. It is a hilarious compilation of stories about deranged democrats who steal campaign signs, chase Bush stickered vans, and how "moonbats on campus" are hurting academia. It is an entertaining read. Some stories I read about, others I never knew of. Interesting thing?, republicans never do those kinds of things. I'm reading at as a colleague that I worked with loaned it to me. She's a republican, but we get along well.
QUOTE(BoF @ May 10 2007, 05:36 PM)
H. W. Brands
Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times
Doubleday, 2005
560 pages + sources, annotated bibliography and index
I came away from this book with mixed thoughts and emotions about Andrew Jackson.
I admire Jackson as a survivor! He survived small pox, being hit in the head with a sword while still a teenager, being shot in a duel, a fight with the Bentons of Missouri and an assassination attempt where not one but two guns (later found to work just fine) misfired.
On the other hand Jackson was a brawler, a racist, a slave owner and slave trader. He hired overseers who practiced cruelty to slaves.
Jackson, however, had power. Even on his death bed in 1845, he had influence.
That influence lasted beyond Jackson’s death until the Civil War.
If detail is both the virtue and vice of Brands’s Franklin biography, lack of detail is the downfall of the Jackson volume. He hits the high points – Biddle and the bank, South Carolina and nullification, but uses only about 100 pages to cover eight years of Jackson’s presidency.
I like Bands’s summation about Jackson’s popularity.
Are there parallels in history? I think so. The above paragraph seems to explain much of Bush’s appeal in 2004.
Note: I noticed that aevans176 reported reading this book a while back. His take is probably different than mine, but I invite him to share his opinion here.
Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times
Doubleday, 2005
560 pages + sources, annotated bibliography and index
I came away from this book with mixed thoughts and emotions about Andrew Jackson.
I admire Jackson as a survivor! He survived small pox, being hit in the head with a sword while still a teenager, being shot in a duel, a fight with the Bentons of Missouri and an assassination attempt where not one but two guns (later found to work just fine) misfired.
On the other hand Jackson was a brawler, a racist, a slave owner and slave trader. He hired overseers who practiced cruelty to slaves.
Jackson, however, had power. Even on his death bed in 1845, he had influence.
QUOTE
He [Sam Houston] wanted to be the one to tell Jackson that Texas was part of the union….On the road they discovered they were too late…the old general had died at six o’clock. Pages 557-558
That influence lasted beyond Jackson’s death until the Civil War.
If detail is both the virtue and vice of Brands’s Franklin biography, lack of detail is the downfall of the Jackson volume. He hits the high points – Biddle and the bank, South Carolina and nullification, but uses only about 100 pages to cover eight years of Jackson’s presidency.
I like Bands’s summation about Jackson’s popularity.
QUOTE
Jackson’s appeal to the American people was the appeal of the chieftain to the tribe. They loved him because he was their protector, their hero. But they also loved him because he embodied their hopes and fears, their passions and prejudices, their insight and their ignorance, better than anyone before him. Page 556.
Are there parallels in history? I think so. The above paragraph seems to explain much of Bush’s appeal in 2004.
Note: I noticed that aevans176 reported reading this book a while back. His take is probably different than mine, but I invite him to share his opinion here.
******************************
Great thoughts, and I have to say that I believe this to be a provacative book and made me think greatly about the man and his influence on our nation. (Side note- I was named after Andrew Jackson, presumably due to my Louisiana roots, and probably history book's version of the man).
Simply, not all of Jackson's ideas and morals would stand up in today's society. He DID believe in our nation and left an indelible mark on America. Unfortunately, the ideas of his day did propogate ideas of racism, and he did own slaves. Sure- we all see it as deplorable, but it's hard to say how he'd have reacted under today's values.
One thing that people probably don't know about Jackson is that he had the idea that federal offices should be elected, including many that probably are appointed today. He also wanted to nix the electoral college (as do millions of Americans today).
He definitely was a patriot, regardless of views that maybe we didn't agree with. He joined the revolutionary war as a young boy, where he survived being a prisoner and British brutality.
Brands, in my opinion, does a good job of painting a pretty accurate picture relieved of bias. I'd surely give a rec'd on this one, if anything else to give yourself an accurate picture of the man who history generally remembers as the victor of the battle of New Orleans.
Wish I had time to write more... in a hurry this am.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.