A pretty fun book that covers the lakers years from 1996 to 2004 (basically, the Kobe+Shaq years, ending in Shaq's last season with the Lakers). I didA pretty fun book that covers the lakers years from 1996 to 2004 (basically, the Kobe+Shaq years, ending in Shaq's last season with the Lakers). I didn't think it was quite as good as Pearlman's other Laker book, Showtime that covers the Magic Johnson years of the 1980's.
The biggest reaction I had from this book is that Kobe does not come out looking good - as a player or a person.
I have to first caveat what I mean by him not looking good "as a player". Of course he was a great player and an integral part of the 3 championship teams in 2000 to 2002. But the idea of him being near Michael Jordan level seems ludicrous if you believe Pearlman (another caveat: this book is only describing him in the 1996-04 period. Pearlman mentioned in the forward that he was a different person in later years).
As a player, Pearlman describes Kobe as selfish, often taking too many low percentage shots and being unwilling to pass to his teammates. He was clearly not as important to the team as Shaq was.
Pearlman describes Kobe as someone that basically the entire team disliked. He was arrogant, thin skinned, and mean to people.
The one thing you can not criticize Kobe for is his work ethic. His dedication to work tireless to be the best he could possibly be, and the confidence he had in himself, is very impressive. Shaq, on the other hand, was rather lazy. Maybe not lazy by "regular person" standards, but relative to other professional athletes, his lack of dedication really stood out.
Then there is the rape allegation in 2003 against Kobe. The way Pearlman describes the incident, he has no doubt the Kobe Bryant did indeed commit rape. I've read up on the incident since this book, and I think Pearlman leaves out or glosses over some key facts that cast doubt on the credibility of the accusation, but this review is getting too long to get into that.
Aside from Kobe, no one else really comes out looking good either. There seems to be a general pattern that the NBA selects for people with extremely high aggression, and then because of their fame they learn they can get away with treating people - particularly women - very badly. That combination means there are some very ugly stories about what NBA players were like.
However, for other people the picture is generally mixed. While Shaq has a dark side of his own, and is often dinged for his laziness, he also has a generous side and is generally well liked by his teammates. Phil Jackson is credited for his management of egos and winning those three titles, but is also criticized for not reigning in Kobe's selfishness in the 2002-03 and 2003-04 years....more
I thought this was excellent. I waited to read this because I thought the findings would be stuff I already agreed with and I wouldn't get much out ofI thought this was excellent. I waited to read this because I thought the findings would be stuff I already agreed with and I wouldn't get much out of the book. Of course you should minimize distractions and improve your focus. But the book had some good practical suggestions for how to do it.
The suggestion I followed was to experiment with eliminating Social Media for 30 days. I did this for everything: Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, 欧宝娱乐. I even removed some of the games I had on my phone I would use to distract myself with when bored. I think it was a good experiment - Twitter especially was a sinkhole of my time. I never posted anything on Twitter but I was sort of addicted to finding out the hot takes on some of the latest news events. But it wasn't doing anything constructive for me. The only one I've added back since the experiment is 欧宝娱乐.
Relatedly, I like the suggestion that it's OK to be bored sometimes. It's OK to just wait in a line and not do anything. In fact, if you can train yourself to do this it can have some benefits in improving your ability to focus for longer periods of time....more
Joe Posnanski started work on this book before the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke. I believe he planned to write a book that was very positive about PatJoe Posnanski started work on this book before the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke. I believe he planned to write a book that was very positive about Paterno 鈥� emphasizing his rigid moral code, his focus on education (Penn State athletes were typically the most successful of any program, and had very little racial discrepancies), his honesty and directness, his work ethic, and of course his incredible run of success for an extraordinarily long time. There would have been some things on the other side of the ledger that made him 鈥渃omplicated鈥�. Perhaps he drove his athletes and coaches too hard. He stayed on too long as Head Coach, being too stubborn to retire. And there might have been times where he compromised on his moral code to win games. But I think the story would have mainly been very positive, with lots of testimonials from his former players and coaches that can describe lifelong lessons they took away from Paterno.
But the Sandusky story threw a big wrench in the project. Paterno鈥檚 legacy was destroyed by it, as there is a common belief that either 鈥淛oe knew鈥� or at the very least 鈥淛oe knew enough that he should have asked more questions鈥�. Posnanski himself ends up taking the latter view. He believes that even though he reported Mike McQueary鈥檚 story in 2001 to his supervisor and another Vice President that oversees the Campus Police, he should have followed up. Note that Jerry Sandusky wasn鈥檛 his coach anymore or even working for the university. But still, Posnanski argues, the 鈥淧aterno Way鈥� should have been to follow up to make sure this is being investigated properly.
Even with this criticism, the book still has positive vibes overall on Paterno. Just that it鈥檚 a lot more mixed than I think he planned it to be.
I鈥檝e been convinced by the book The Most Hated Man in America - Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment by Mark Pendergrast, and the podcast 鈥淲ith the Benefit of Hindsight鈥� by John Ziegler that even the milder critique of Paterno is unfair, and in fact the entire case against Sandusky is suspect. Read my review here of Pendergrast鈥檚 book for more detail. Since I read Posnanski鈥檚 book shortly after reading Pendergrast鈥檚 book and Ziegler鈥檚 podcast, I can鈥檛 help but be unimpressed with Posnanski鈥檚 discussion of the Sandusky case. It is very superficial, not getting into any of the mounds of evidence and background Ziegler and Pendergrast bring up that make the case much more complicated than you would think from reading mainstream media accounts.
Aside from the treatment of the Sandusky scandal, the book was good. Paterno is a fascinating man. I loved the football stories of his coaching methods and his teams鈥� successes and failures through the years....more
[image]
Lincoln It was an interesting imagination of what Lincoln was really like, but it was really long and didn鈥檛 consistently hold my interest. Review(3 stars)
I read this book after I listened to the podcast 鈥淲ith the Benefit of Hindsight鈥� by John Ziegler (with Liz Habib). It was the podcast that really got I read this book after I listened to the podcast 鈥淲ith the Benefit of Hindsight鈥� by John Ziegler (with Liz Habib). It was the podcast that really got me interested in the subject, then I read Pendergrast's book to confirm Ziegler's assertions.
Both Ziegler and Pendergrast make a detailed and convincing argument that Jerry Sandusky is innocent.
You might be thinking, that鈥檚 crazy. He was convicted on 45 counts of child sexual abuse and will spend the rest of his life in prison. There are so many different accusers 鈥� 8 that testified at the criminal trial and 32 that would eventually receive a payment from Penn State. He was supposedly caught in the act at a shower at a Penn State facility. No one really thinks he is innocent, right?
That was my reaction going into it. But I鈥檓 convinced that it鈥檚 likely he鈥檚 innocent. It鈥檚 possible I鈥檓 missing something. I鈥檇 like to see someone who disagrees with this take seriously the evidence and arguments that Ziegler and Pendergrast have brought forth. But I haven鈥檛 seen anyone do that.
General Comments on the Book and Podcast
Ziegler and Pendergrast did their work independently. They don鈥檛 even really like each other.
Ziegler is bombastic and argumentative. He鈥檚 also very entertaining. The podcast is addictive. The format is that Liz and John talk through the case, often getting very worked up and emotional.
Pendergrast is calmer, more laser-focused on the evidence, and less quick to make sweeping judgments about other people鈥檚 competence and honesty. But he is still very blunt about the lack of evidence, the incompetence of Sandusky鈥檚 attorney, and the 鈥渢ravesty鈥� (his word) of justice that was his trial.
Ziegler鈥檚 interest in the case originated from an instinct that this was a moral panic and a rush to judgment, though his focus was originally limited to how he felt Joe Paterno was unfairly 鈥渃ancelled鈥�. Only later in his investigations did he conclude that Sandusky himself was innocent.
Pendergrast鈥檚 interest in the case originated from him learning that repressed memories were being used. Pendergrast has done a lot of research and written a book about how repressed memories are discredited.
If you have limited time, I鈥檇 recommend starting with the podcast, because it is way more entertaining. But the book is very good too. The book and the podcast made basically the same arguments. There are more hours on the podcast, so Ziegler gets into more detail (and more emotional rants, which I enjoyed but YMMV). I will say the podcast grew a little tiresome by the end. There is one episode that is literally five and a half hours long of Ziegler complaining about the media. I didn鈥檛 make it through the whole podcast, but everything up until this 鈥渕edia鈥� episode (Episode 13) was excellent.
The Argument
My memory is fuzzy on what exactly Ziegler vs Pendergrast brought up, so I won鈥檛 try to distinguish. In general, they made the same arguments so there is a good chance both of them brought up the arguments I鈥檒l mention below.
The first question might be 鈥渨hat about all those accusers鈥�? Well, at first there was one accuser, Aaron Fisher. No one else came forward claiming sexual abuse before it was known there was a case (and the possibility of a payout). So it would be incorrect to think of these different accusations as being independent from each other.
There are many things about the various accusers鈥� stories that make them lack credibility. None of them confided to any friends or family about any molestation (or even any 鈥渃reepy behavior鈥�) at the times they allege it happened. None of them have any physical evidence 鈥� like knowledge of Sandusky鈥檚 genitalia (which did have a distinctive feature) or incriminating texts, emails, letters, or phone messages. Their stories are often wildly inconsistent over time 鈥� changing in ways that would make a big payout more likely (like by increasing the severity of what happened or changing the date of an incident to be years later). Some of the stories just seem ludicrous 鈥� like Sandusky plying the kids with alcohol (Sandusky was a lifelong abstainer of alcohol), or one accuser鈥檚 story of being trapped like a dog in the Sandusky's basement for days at a time, while he screamed away to no avail (he also claims Sandusky's wife was an accomplice in this torture). Interviews Ziegler did with friends and family of some of the accusers show that they have a history of deceit and criminal behavior. Some of these friends and family heard the accusers brag about how much money they were going to get.
The accusers would often maintain close relationships with Sandusky and his family years after the alleged abuse 鈥� not just being cordial with each other but very warm relations where the accuser treated Sandusky like a father.
When Sandusky鈥檚 home was searched, there was no evidence of child pornography. This is very unusual in these cases. There is also no evidence of Sandusky ever having any sexual relationship with anyone besides his wife. Sandusky was also diagnosed with having very low testosterone, which would make it impossible to have sexual acts at the frequency he was accused of. Not to mention that while he was coaching, he was extraordinarily busy, but for all the accusations to be true, being a sexual molester would practically have to have been his full-time job.
What about the notable incident where coach Mike McQueary claims he saw Sandusky in a sexual act with a boy? Ziegler and Pendergrast go through the statements and their conclusion is this:
McQueary didn鈥檛 see a sexual act. He saw Sandusky and a teenager in the shower (through a mirror) engaged in some sort of horseplay (Sandusky, and the teenager, would later explain that they were snapping towels and pretend boxing with each other). He thought it was weird. Later, he explained what he saw to his father and a family friend. The family friend testified that McQueary made it crystal clear that he did not see a sexual act (the family friend asked him repeatedly to confirm). His father and the family friend encouraged him to tell Coach Paterno. McQueary, 6 weeks later, eventually does mention something to Paterno, in a very quick conversation. Paterno, thinking it involves some sort of horseplay that might be inappropriate, reports the incident to the athletic director (Tim Curley) and the Vice President (Gary Schultz). Curley and Schultz talk to McQueary. In both Curley鈥檚 and Shultz鈥檚 recollection of their discussions with McQueary, McQueary does not claim there was a anything of a sexual nature going on, but rather 鈥渉orsing around鈥�. When Curley talks to Sandusky, Sandusky explains there was some horsing around but nothing else. Sandusky also tells Curley the name of the teenager and offers his contact information, if they want to confirm his story. Curley decides not to contact the boy. Instead, Curley and Schultz close the incident by telling Sandusky he can鈥檛 bring boys onto the main campus anymore (but they do continue to allow him to bring boys to their satellite campus).
McQueary would later change his story, claiming he heard noises and saw actions that were likely sexual. It should be noted that (1) this change in story came after attempts by prosecutors to pressure him into saying something more about the incident, letting him know that there were other 鈥渧ictims鈥� and he would really be helping out if he could remember something different, (2) McQueary鈥檚 final version of the story helped him win a huge lawsuit from Penn State for being the victim in a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit of $12M, and (3) Ziegler brings up some things about McQueary that cast doubt on his character.
The teenager, Allan Myers, when originally questioned, would clearly state that Sandusky never abused him, and in fact said something to the effect of 鈥淚鈥檒l never say anything bad about Jerry Sandusky鈥�. He confirmed Sandusky's account that what happened in the shower was just mild horseplay. Myers also wrote letters to newspapers, in his own name, supporting Sandusky against the accusations and praising him for his help and support. When Myers got married, he asked Sandusky to stand in at the ceremony for his Dad. Later, when other accusers came forward, he changed his story, turning himself into a victim, which resulted in him getting a multi-million dollar settlement from Penn State.
Why Did this Happen to Sandusky?
You still might be wondering, where there is smoke there is fire right? Or is Sandusky just the most unlucky person in America to have all these false accusations hurled at him?
Ziegler offers a good explanation for why it isn鈥檛 surprising that Sandusky would eventually face accusations: Over the course of decades, Sandusky worked with hundreds, maybe thousands, of 鈥渁t-risk鈥� youth 鈥� kids who came from some of the worst backgrounds you could imagine. From families and communities where criminal behavior was common. From a culture where resentment against the system was common.
Combine that with how he was kind of touchy-feely and very trusting, willing to have these kids in their homes and for sleepovers. This created opportunities where a hug or a locker room shower could, years later, be re-imagined, sometimes with the help of repressed memory therapy, as something worse. Especially when there are financial incentives involved. And even more especially when aggressive prosecutors and lawyers are continually pushing them with leading questions, encouraging them to tell the stories they desperately want to hear.
I don鈥檛 think it is surprising that of the hundreds and hundreds of kids Sandusky worked with, there were some that would be responsive to the financial incentive of making an accusation, particularly after the first accusation, when there is a known case that they could piggy-back onto.
Unfortunately, I don鈥檛 have time to discuss the incredible, frustrating, and unbelievable incompetence of Sandusky鈥檚 defense attorney. Or some of the questionable decisions made by the judge during the trial. Or the particular ridiculousness of one of the accusations: the 鈥渏anitor鈥� story. I hope you鈥檒l read the book or listen to the podcast and share your thoughts....more
If you are considering reading this book, you should know that it has a completely different tone, style, and feel than the 1939 movie. Much of this iIf you are considering reading this book, you should know that it has a completely different tone, style, and feel than the 1939 movie. Much of this is because of the "adult" themes, but it's more than that - like the contemporary language. It might be hard for you to accept that this is a continuation of the story.
But that said, I still liked it quite a bit. It took me a while to get into this. The first 1/3rd or so of the book felt too slow. But I got hooked. The World Building was really interesting, and I really liked the alternative history in the story arc of the Wicked Witch.
This is an interesting conversation between an atheist, Sam Harris, and a Muslim, Maajid Nawaz. Sam Harris is a harsh critic of Islam, and Maajid NawaThis is an interesting conversation between an atheist, Sam Harris, and a Muslim, Maajid Nawaz. Sam Harris is a harsh critic of Islam, and Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim who is a former extremist but now follows a more liberal and less literal version of Islam.
Harris and Nawaz agree on a lot. They agree that extremist Muslims are not just a small minority. Only a small percent of Muslims are trying to use violence to implement their version of Islam, but an uncomfortably large percent have traditional, fundamentalist views such as supporting things like: killing adulterers and apostates, cutting off the hands of thieves, supporting honor killings, and subjugating women. Harris and Nawaz agree on a framework for describing Muslims into a few rough categories which they label as: 鈥淛ihadists鈥�, 鈥淚slamists鈥�, 鈥淩eligiously Conservative Muslims鈥�, and 鈥淩eform Muslims鈥�. I won鈥檛 try to explain their definition of each of these categories, but I found this discussion helpful.
Nawaz is hopeful that his version of a more secular, liberal, less literal, and modern Islam will be persuasive. Harris is skeptical of this. He believes Nawaz often does a lot of complicated mental gymnastics to arrive at meanings in the religious texts that seem at odds with a more straightforward meaning that most people would take away. But he does have a lot of admiration for Nawaz and is wishing him the best.
I thought it was a great discussion. It was a very short book, just a couple hours on audio, so it might be worth your while. ...more
Noa Tishby has had an interesting life. She grew up in Israel, with a middle class family that can trace its Israeli roots to the early 1900鈥檚. One ofNoa Tishby has had an interesting life. She grew up in Israel, with a middle class family that can trace its Israeli roots to the early 1900鈥檚. One of her grandmothers was one of the earliest members of a Kibbutz, and one of her grandfathers was a very influential Israeli diplomat. Noa developed a passion for acting and by the time she was a young adult she was one of Israel鈥檚 most famous television stars. She moved to Los Angeles, and while her acting career did not develop as she had hoped, she became a very successful producer.
She isn鈥檛 someone you鈥檇 think is likely to write a history book. But after seeing how misunderstood Israel is, even amongst her liberal political allies, she became a strong and prominent advocate for Israel, and this is her attempt to comprehensively express her thoughts.
This book is a history book at its core. It traces the history of early Jewish settlers of Israel, the founding of Israel, and everything that happened afterwards. What makes the book unique is that it is frequently supplemented by personal anecdotes and family history. While I was already familiar with most of the basic facts, the personal stories gave me a richer understanding.
The book is also a blunt defense of Israel. It probably won鈥檛 change the minds of any hardened critics of Israel. But for some folks that have a negative impression of Israel but haven鈥檛 done a lot of reading on the topic, it may persuade them to think about things in a different light. ...more
I can't think of much to say about this excellent book. The description of life in the concentration camps was a little different than I expected. It I can't think of much to say about this excellent book. The description of life in the concentration camps was a little different than I expected. It was more disorganized than I pictured. Also, the depiction of the German guards was less cartoonish and more human than I expected - which was jarring and made it more nightmarish. I'm glad I read this....more
I gotta give up on this book. It's too meandering. I enjoyed some of the writing. Some of the "stories within the story" were really captivating. I maI gotta give up on this book. It's too meandering. I enjoyed some of the writing. Some of the "stories within the story" were really captivating. I made it halfway through, but it is a really long book and I don't want to invest a lot more time on it. Also, I get annoyed at books like this that overly romanticize about books and reading....more
There are a few complaints I have to get off my chest before I can talk about why I liked the book.
The 鈥済ames are a metaphor for life鈥� message was tooThere are a few complaints I have to get off my chest before I can talk about why I liked the book.
The 鈥済ames are a metaphor for life鈥� message was too frequent and too heavy handed. Jeez, I get it already. Stop hitting me over the head with it.
There was one key point in the plot that relied on a cheesy sit-com style 鈥渕isunderstanding鈥� to generate conflict. That was annoying.
It was probably too long.
And there was one key plot point that I thought was just dumb. I鈥檒l describe that at the end with a spoiler filter.
OK, now that that鈥檚 done, I have to admit, I couldn鈥檛 put this book down. I loved the characters. I loved the story of the love/friendship triangle of the three main characters. Their very complex relationships as romance, friendship, and jealousy all intertwined. There were moments where the characters showed such compassion and empathy for each other it was very moving (though bordering on being too saccharine. And usually, rather predictably, it foreshadowed something bad happening. OK, I know I said I was done with complaints but that鈥檚 the last one!)
The book also made me think about boundaries in relationships. Everyone has boundaries, but what people are willing to share and not share can be quite different from person to person. A couple can have a relationship that they perceive to be incredibly deep, but others might view as shallow, because they have different boundaries.
While I鈥檓 not a gamer, I really liked the descriptions of the creative, technical, and business aspects of creating games. You don鈥檛 have to be a gamer to enjoy it.
It was interesting how the characters developed and protected their sense of identity. People work really hard to build identities for themselves. Why is it so important? Sometimes, when people are young and insecure, they can do things to foster their 鈥渋dentity鈥� that might seem foolish later in life.
I liked how the book moved through time, showing how cultural trends impacted the story. There is a college professor in the 鈥�90鈥檚 who makes crude sexual jokes and serially dates his students. He鈥檚 not meant to be 鈥渢he bad guy鈥� (though I kind of hated him) but it was interesting to think about how Sadie would have viewed him if she were born 20 years later. There is another point where a video game is made starring a Japanese character. None of the designers are Japanese so this is 鈥渃ultural appropriation鈥�. I thought the author described these events faithfully and honestly to what might have actually happened and how people would have reacted to it at the time. There wasn鈥檛 a preachy moral we were to take from this, it was just interesting food for thought about how things have changed, and how cultural expectations impacted our values. Though, I can鈥檛 pay the same complement to a particular scene that annoyed me鈥�
The dumb scene 鈥� spoiler alert!
(view spoiler)[The scene I am talking about is the tragic shooting of Marx. 2 cartoonish gunmen enter the office, demand to see Sam, the creator of a virtual world that allowed gay marriage (by the way, the virtual world also banned guns). You see, one of the gunmen had a wife who married another woman in the virtual world, which made him mad, so he got a gun (since you can do that in the real world, unlike the visionary utopia of the virtual world that Sam created) and decided to scare Sam. The gunman wasn鈥檛 mentally unstable, he was just a Bad Person with Bad Ideas About Gay People and unfortunately had Access to Guns. Marks almost calmed him down enough to avoid incident, but an unpredictable event spooked the gunman, and he shot the gun instinctively (which is a bad thing that can happen with guns!) and sadly killed Marks. The whole scene was just so political and artificial it was really cringey.
It actually made me think that this could be a West Wing episode. Like this book, the West Wing is also something I enjoy immensely, and also enjoy complaining about. The only thing missing to complete an episode arc if this was a West Wing episode would be the inspirational ending, where President Bartlett鈥檚 Sensible Gun Control Reform passes Congress, and some prominent blowhard Conservative has a change of heart about Gay people and/or guns. 鈥淣o one should get shot for their ideas about gay marriage. I鈥檓 done defending bans on gay marriage!鈥� Pan out, cue credits. (hide spoiler)]
To give constructive criticism you are supposed to do the 鈥渃omplement sandwich鈥�. I realize I did an 鈥渋nsult sandwich鈥� so maybe it gets lost that liked the book, but I really did!...more
I love this series, and this might have been my favorite book of the series. Stephen Fry tells the story of the Trojan war in his own inimitable way. I love this series, and this might have been my favorite book of the series. Stephen Fry tells the story of the Trojan war in his own inimitable way. The stories are over 3000 years old, but they are so rich and complex. ...more
Part 1, 鈥淭he Habits of Individuals鈥�, was brilliant. Charles Duhigg explains how habits form, what鈥檚 going on in our brains, how we can change bad habiPart 1, 鈥淭he Habits of Individuals鈥�, was brilliant. Charles Duhigg explains how habits form, what鈥檚 going on in our brains, how we can change bad habits and develop new habits.
Duhigg explains things simply and clearly, like how habits have three basic components: the cue, the response, and reward. Starting in the middle, the response is the behavior in question 鈥� it could be the bad habit you are trying to break, like smoking, or a good habit you are trying to establish, like working out. The cue is what triggers the habit. For example, some people are cued by feelings of boredom, which makes them unthinkingly light up a cigarette, reach for an unhealthy snack, or bite their fingernails. After the behavior, there is some sort of reward that reinforces the behavior. Duhigg invites us to investigate, for the bad habits we are trying to break, what is it that cues this behavior, and what is the reward we ultimately get from it. He argues that if you can identify the cue, but sub in a different behavior that gives us the same reward, we can break ourselves from bad habits. He gives a lot of specific examples of people who did this, even when the habits seemed so ingrained in their lifestyle that it seemed impossible to stop. It was really inspiring. I鈥檓 looking forward to try it out myself.
Part 2 鈥淭he Habits of Successful Organizations鈥� and Part 3 鈥淭he Habits of Societies鈥� were interesting but not nearly as good as Part 1. If you are interested in the topic but not sure about investing in the reading time for this book, consider just reading Part 1. ...more
This was a pretty fun book to read. It is a work of historical fiction that covers Lincoln from the start of his presidency to his assassination. It iThis was a pretty fun book to read. It is a work of historical fiction that covers Lincoln from the start of his presidency to his assassination. It is written through the points of view of various political associates and enemies, though not through Lincoln鈥檚 own eyes. Details of the war were not covered. It instead focused on his political maneuverings.
This type of book can do something no pure history book can do. It can give a possible answer to the question 鈥渨hat was Lincoln really like鈥�? In Gore Vidal鈥檚 telling, Lincoln was a master politician, always one step ahead of his opponents. He had a humble and self-deprecating manner, but underneath was sly cunning and a nerve of steel to stick to his own judgment and decisions. His philosophical driving force was to save the Union, which he was determined to do at any cost. Vidal paints his opposition to slavery to be of secondary importance.
The way that the book was written through the points of view of several people other than Lincoln, but never Lincoln himself, resulted in presenting Lincoln with a mysterious air. No one was ever really sure what exactly was going on in his mind. It was interesting to speculate. It was also fun seeing how people constantly underestimated him.
I can鈥檛 say how historically accurate this book is, or how defensible the portrait was of his personality. I hope it was good, otherwise I鈥檒l feel rather cheated. My 2 critiques of the book are (1) the length. I had a hard time maintaining interest for this long. At some point it felt like the characters became fully developed and were less interesting to follow. And (2) The story of David Herold (John Wilkes Boothe accomplice) was far too slow. This should have been the most exciting parts of the book, but I grew very impatient at the slow pacing. ...more
Loading...
