By Joseph J. Ellis.
Copyright 2000 by Joseph J. Ellis.
Published Vintage Books a Division of Random House, 2002.
Originally published by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, 2000.
248 pages.
This is a book that won the Pulitzer prize so clearly I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm not going to let awards and honors sway me from my opinion no matter how wrong I am. The problem with much non-fiction, especially that of History, is that it is not always reader friendly. There's tons of citations, quotations, notations and appellations in this book which always make for a difficult read.. This is especially true when the book is about the politics of the day, which this one is.
But the author tries to present the content in a different way. He tries to write stories, or essays, in a roughly chronological order (apart from the 1st one which is later/ middle in the time period covered) and this does help a little. I believe the author even uses the word "stories" in his introduction. And certainly the book does start off with a riveting story. It speaks about the infamous duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. And that is a pretty riveting story, even when the author describes the circumstances that led to the duel, which are mostly political in nature. They were in opposite political parties and Hamilton was pretty much libeling Burr. Still this section of the book was very interesting.
But then the "stories" seem to be pretty flimsy constructs to hang a narrative. Ellis might take one small event, a dinner party between rival politicians, to wax seemingly forever about the politics of the day. A couple of the stories are not even stories but simply concepts or themes. Here are some example titles: The Silence, The Collaborators and The Friendship. Not really stories, but themes. Which is fine, but the author had me believing this would be more narrative oriented.
Not that I didn't enjoy all the information about the politics of the day. There was much discussion about slavery, states rights vs Federal government power, and Federal banking. All of them being intricately connected. And I enjoyed those discussions, but I am probably a more patient reader than most.
The last two chapters center around Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and the book picks up here again. They were friends during the Revolution, rivals in Politics, and then friends again in the waning years of their lives. They wrote a series of letters to each other, even while Jefferson was President. They wrote with the knowledge that they would be leaving these letters behind them after death for posterity and history. Adams wrote that now that they were friends again, they should try to explain their differing opinions to each other, and consequently to History and the future.
I think the author war somewhat successful at making this book "reader friendly", but not completely. And the above organization of information was helpful. I can think of two books about History which I felt were reader friendly, so I do think it is possible to do, but admittedly rare. One was a book about modern Mexico. (The title escapes me but was one of my all time favorites) It used themes to organize the information. The book was highly readable and enjoyable. Of course it wasn't strictly about politics, but it did have a chapter or two about that. So maybe it is really hard to wrote a "reader friendly" book about political history.
Another book, which can be found on this blog was one about the Jamestown colony. That was very interesting partly because it had extensive primary sources written by Captain John Smith himself. Again this book is not strictly about the politics. In this book, the author talked about the relationship with the Indians often. Perhaps a bit more intriguing than strictly politics.
So, while this was an excellent book, I believe the readability suffered because of the focus on the politics and also some of the old fashioned language used in the quotes. Maybe it's not possible to have a purely political book that is reader friendly, though I think this was a good attempt. And of course, the content, no matter how difficult the reading, is always paramount in non-fiction and the content alone can sometimes be enough to keep a reader engaged. Which it did for me. I don't mind political history.
Here's some one else's opinion.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Death of Sweet Mister ***
By Daniel Woodrell.
Copyright 2001 by Daniel Woodrell.
Published G.P. Putnam' Sons, Penguin Putnam
Pages 196.
Woodrell is one of my favorite authors so I have read several of his books already. This is fairly typical of his work, and I like his work, so of course I liked it! He specializes in stories about the Appalachian Mountains and the people who live there. His books are full of violence, drug abuse, poverty and a bit of black humor. My kind of book!
Here's the story. It's about a dysfunctional nuclear family of three who live somewhere in the Appalachian Mountains.There's a mom, Glenda, her brutal husband/boyfriend, Red and a young 13 year-old chubby boy called Shug, who is also called by his mother the tile character - Sweet Mister. That's the nickname that his mom gives him. So the mom is very submissive towards the brutal husband and pretty much lets him have his way in every way - especially sexually. She has a strong affection for her son, which kind of leads to a teasing, flirty behavior. Red abuses the two and has the young boy steal drugs from the homes of doctors and very sick patients. Eventually a guy in a Green T-bird comes along , Jimmy Vin, and sweeps her off her feet so to speak. This leads to the fact that Glenda now has two lovers. Shug witnesses this all, but he hates Red enough that he doesn't care except for the jealousy of the attention that his mother is getting. It all predictably comes down to a violent ending in which we are the witness to the aftermath. He doesn't actually describe the scene in the book. Jimmy plans to take Glenda away from it all as he has found a new job, but Shug can't come along because his job is on a cruise ship. Jimmy is a cook, and there is no room. So that's the plan, but Jimmy never shows up for reasons discussed below.
Lots of spoilers already not spoiled above to follow.
So as I was reading this and when I figured out who Sweet Mister was, I was very concerned for the boy since he seemed, relatively, a nice gentle should caught in the wrong place. By the title, I thought he would die, but he doesn't. It's his innocence that dies. I think the message is that this type of life style is circular. Even though Shug is a good kid, it seems reasonable that he will turn out the same as Red- criminal, abusive, misogynist and addicted to drugs, though there is a bit of hope for him maybe because of his sensitivity, he might, more or less, escape all that. The ending would seem to prove that that probably WON'T be the case.
After all the sensual teasing from his mother and all the out and out sexual behavior he witnessed from the adults, the husband Red took minimal efforts to hide those exploits, Shug seemed ti think he deserved some of what his mother had been giving out. Yes it seems cliche, but were talking about mother and son, hence the end/death of his innocence. She tells him no when he begins to make a move, but Shug insists, and whines about not getting what everyone else does. Glenda is able to fend off Shug's advances at first, but when she realizes that Jimmy is not coming to pick her she resignedly gives in to her boy's wishes - She has given up hope.
So that's the death of his innocence, but there are more examples of how his innocence has been murdered. When Shug learns that he wont be going with his mother he is the one that puts everything in play. It's that Glenda and Jimmy have to leave because they murdered Red. Shug knows it, but keeps their secret to protect his mother. But when he finds out he's not going, he goes and tells Red's best friend who makes it happen that Jimmy is NOT capable of running off with Glenda. So Glenda, in her "not very motherly shorts", allows Shugs hands to move higher and higher on the very last page. Life as they knew for Shug and Glenda was over.
Copyright 2001 by Daniel Woodrell.
Published G.P. Putnam' Sons, Penguin Putnam
Pages 196.
Woodrell is one of my favorite authors so I have read several of his books already. This is fairly typical of his work, and I like his work, so of course I liked it! He specializes in stories about the Appalachian Mountains and the people who live there. His books are full of violence, drug abuse, poverty and a bit of black humor. My kind of book!
Here's the story. It's about a dysfunctional nuclear family of three who live somewhere in the Appalachian Mountains.There's a mom, Glenda, her brutal husband/boyfriend, Red and a young 13 year-old chubby boy called Shug, who is also called by his mother the tile character - Sweet Mister. That's the nickname that his mom gives him. So the mom is very submissive towards the brutal husband and pretty much lets him have his way in every way - especially sexually. She has a strong affection for her son, which kind of leads to a teasing, flirty behavior. Red abuses the two and has the young boy steal drugs from the homes of doctors and very sick patients. Eventually a guy in a Green T-bird comes along , Jimmy Vin, and sweeps her off her feet so to speak. This leads to the fact that Glenda now has two lovers. Shug witnesses this all, but he hates Red enough that he doesn't care except for the jealousy of the attention that his mother is getting. It all predictably comes down to a violent ending in which we are the witness to the aftermath. He doesn't actually describe the scene in the book. Jimmy plans to take Glenda away from it all as he has found a new job, but Shug can't come along because his job is on a cruise ship. Jimmy is a cook, and there is no room. So that's the plan, but Jimmy never shows up for reasons discussed below.
Lots of spoilers already not spoiled above to follow.
So as I was reading this and when I figured out who Sweet Mister was, I was very concerned for the boy since he seemed, relatively, a nice gentle should caught in the wrong place. By the title, I thought he would die, but he doesn't. It's his innocence that dies. I think the message is that this type of life style is circular. Even though Shug is a good kid, it seems reasonable that he will turn out the same as Red- criminal, abusive, misogynist and addicted to drugs, though there is a bit of hope for him maybe because of his sensitivity, he might, more or less, escape all that. The ending would seem to prove that that probably WON'T be the case.
After all the sensual teasing from his mother and all the out and out sexual behavior he witnessed from the adults, the husband Red took minimal efforts to hide those exploits, Shug seemed ti think he deserved some of what his mother had been giving out. Yes it seems cliche, but were talking about mother and son, hence the end/death of his innocence. She tells him no when he begins to make a move, but Shug insists, and whines about not getting what everyone else does. Glenda is able to fend off Shug's advances at first, but when she realizes that Jimmy is not coming to pick her she resignedly gives in to her boy's wishes - She has given up hope.
So that's the death of his innocence, but there are more examples of how his innocence has been murdered. When Shug learns that he wont be going with his mother he is the one that puts everything in play. It's that Glenda and Jimmy have to leave because they murdered Red. Shug knows it, but keeps their secret to protect his mother. But when he finds out he's not going, he goes and tells Red's best friend who makes it happen that Jimmy is NOT capable of running off with Glenda. So Glenda, in her "not very motherly shorts", allows Shugs hands to move higher and higher on the very last page. Life as they knew for Shug and Glenda was over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
