Saturday, October 30, 2010

Washington weekend meander


Robert: While we wait for Gintaras' return, here's an area to discuss your thoughts about the new Washington biography. I've also linked the NY Times review in the title above.

5 comments:

  1. Another view of Washington and biography:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/09/27/100927crat_atlarge_lepore?currentPage=all

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've read numerous biographies of Washington, but no one volume biography can come close to this one. It is a superlative piece of work giving a panoramic view of the man ang going into copiosly noted details I never read before. This makes GW genuinley human and appropriatley flawed--at last we find out that he genuinley smiled snd laughed and that he wasn't sickenly boring. This is Pultzer material. I spent 25 days plowing througgh 825 pages of text and enjoyed it all. Read it--it'll change your views on him and enrich your views on those around him. My eyes preclude me fromreading the New Yorker review--I trust it was favorable. Let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I overdid it today finishing the book...so I'll wait and post more tomorrow... 30 pages on a Kindle is not a bad rate for me---the print in the book is small. With regular print I'm good for 40 to 50 pages daily on a Kindle

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Robert. Look forward to your additional comments. I have such a strong picture of Washington that it will be interesting to read what Chernow has to say about him. I will definitely read the book.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What will probably impress you are the new approaches he has to Washington's personality and behaviors. He does no fawn over the man, nor does he demonize him. He explains him--makes him human--points out his positive, his negatives and his obsnate side.Sometime the General could be an overbearing pain in the ass--and at other times a forgiving soul and a leader who would never order his men to do something he wouldn't do. He suffered as much as his men during the war--yet never lost sight that he was an aristocrat who had to be treated better than others--a democratic man he was not--but admitable he was, in every sense of the word.

    ReplyDelete