Paul

Yes, Lewis here expands some of the Narnia lore and introduces some fun characters, but I do think the plot is pretty boring, slow, and arbitrary. It feels like Lewis just really wanted to go back to Narnia and couldn't quite figure out what he wanted to do once he was there. It seems that this book was more like stage-setting for future stories than it was a full story in its own right.

What a remarkable and moving book. It is one of the funniest books I have read in a long time, without being cynical or snarky. You will both laugh and cry. It is an incisive snapshot of the contemporary mind and experience of the world, relationships, and human difficulties that transcend all technological epochs. Through the lens and filter of our unique media and technological eccentricities, Lockwood gives us a meditation and celebration of what it means to be human underneath and behind all of the posts, likes, and stories. It is neither an indictment of our social media-obsessed age, nor a fetishization of it. Simply a poignant exploration of its limits and the parts of the human soul and experience it cannot adequately capture, share, nor affect. I cannot recommend this book more highly, especially to all of my fellow millennials trying to find meaning and rest in our current age.

Best one of these books so far, I think. Wow.

It's weird. I think this is a “better” novel than the first, though it is not as “interesting” or impactful as the original Foundation novel, hence the lower rating. I appreciate how Asimov, in this book breaks the formula of his previous book a bit. It doesn't cover as much time, it's not as many small stories, but a few larger chunks of narrative. So rather than feeling like a short story collection, it feels more like a proper novel.

In this book, we continue the history of the Foundation–the eponymous organization created in the first book as a haven for human knowledge in anticipation of the Galactic Empire's imminent collapse.

The first book saw the Foundation come out victorious over several enemies due to the careful planning of the mathematician-prophet Hari Seldon, who anticipated a series of what became known as “Seldon Crises” based on the natural profession of nations. In this book–again, following historical precedence–we see what happens after the Foundation becomes the de facto Empire, having conquered those competing interests in volume 1 to find themselves now looking very much like Empire they hated.

We see another few Seldon Crises and how the Foundation and its leader navigate them according to Seldon Providence. How these stories play out are always fun and fascinating with interesting twists and reveals along the way.

But the real meat of the book follows the introduction of a person who could not have been factored into Seldon's original formulae that anticipated humanity's history. And so, “the plan” get thrown off course. Or does it? Previous entries maintained a sense that all that was happening was according to the “plan”. But not here. For the first time in the series, our humans encounter real and genuine uncertainty, and a fascinating exploration of free will and providence.

These are heady ideas, told in beautiful prose, even if a little opaque sometimes. I do feel like–to a greater degree than in the first book–each story takes quite a while before you get your bearings. I can appreciate Asimov's “show, don't tell” commitment and dropping us in res media, but he really just starts each story off without us having much of a clue of the who/what/when of the story and trusting us to figure it out.

Again, I respect it. And I admittedly could have been a slower, more attentive reader to have a better sense. But still, as an experience, I regularly lost track of names, events, and plot lines and just barrelled on through trusting I'd get back on track eventually. And I did. But it could be a frustrating process.

Asimov's “Foundation and Empire” is a worthy follow-up to the original. It changes and switches the formula enough that it is fresh, and it slows down the pace so we can sit with some characters for quite a bit of time, and even has more action. I look forward to the installments to come.

Okay, finally read this book, which is the beginning of what is considered the greatest scifi series ever written. As one who usually doesn't seek out science fiction in his reading, I've got to say, this was fantastic, and represents what everyone says about the best sci-fi: the actual science and premise itself isn't so much the point as it is seeing the human condition play out against its backdrop.

And in that sense, this is a great book. I really thought it would be nerdy and spend all this time with the conceits of the book–but it doesn't. I had to keep reminding myself that this book was written in the 50s, as it reads like a very, very contemporary book. Asimov is a beautiful, literary writer and he seamlessly blends the science elements into casual conversation and asides, rather than didactic speeches.... about the science, that is.

There are plenty of didactic speeches here. It's perhaps the primary way the plot moves along. As has been pointed out in every think piece about how this series is “un-filmable”, the most “exciting” parts of this story happen off-page. Entire multi-year wars are described in a single sentence; huge swaths of time pass between stories; we are dropped into different periods of time between two people and don't get to see what caused their relationships to change in the interim. This is all fine, though, and Asimov moves the stories along and great pace with ingenuity and cleverness.

But about that cleverness. I'd say that is perhaps the only weakness here. As you begin reading this, you will come to realize that, structurally, every vignette and story here is exactly the same: a clever, over-confident (but endearing) man is able to outwit people more powerful and more annoying than him and save the day.

Really. Every story. The primary character has lots of external obstacles thrown in his way, but always keeps his cool, knows he's going to outsmart everyone, and without any effort or difficulty at all (just a lot of forethought and planning) calmly reveals at the end that he's been in control the whole time, knew everything that was going to happen, and worked it all to his favor.

To be sure, it's pretty fun to see how the particular main character pulls it off when everything seems stacked against him, but it can seem a little contrived and too clever by half sometimes.

Nevertheless, this book is so fun, and the continuity of human nature between now and this imagined future tens of thousands years away is fascinating. They are still dealing with politics, trade, economics, and basic human desires. And the winners are able to leverage these to their advantage. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the books to see if he breaks the formula while still exploring the nooks and crannies of this world he's created–a world that spanned nearly every other major work of science fiction since. It certainly deserves such reverence.

I'll write more later, but hands down, one of the greatest, most impactful books I've ever read. I'm speechless.

I absolutely love the Brazos Theological Commentary series. Generally, it is pastoral and winsome, pressing the text into our everyday lives by sharing the fruit of technical academic scholarship married to the spiritual meditations and reflections of those very scholars. I have utilized many of the volumes in this series, but Peter Leithart's “1 & 2 Chronicles” was (I believe) the first I have read cover to cover.

Leithart is an interesting choice. He is a theologian more than a scholar of biblical studies, yet is incredibly well-versed in relevant scholarship and displays a great facility with Hebrew. Having contributed the 1 & 2 Kings volume for this same series, I can see the logic in inviting him back to do Chronicles. It helps him highlight the continuities and discontinuities in each text, and maintain a firm grasp on the overall purpose of the writings in the life and identify formation of Israel. His opening discussions introducing the book and walking through the opening genealogy of the book are incredible contributions in and of themselves.

Leithart maintains a tether to his heart as a minister, and his connections to Christianity, his distillation of scholarly and technical findings, and linking of the text to one's own spiritual and sacramental life are beautiful, moving, and helpful. He does not get bogged down with trying to “reconcile” contradictions or “defend” the text. He takes it as it is received, walking chapter-by-chapter, unfolding the narrative for us, putting things in historical and canonical context very helpfully and (at times) beautifully.

However, it is difficult to recommend this book as a commentary to read from front-to-back. Leithart really gets into the weeds of each chapter in a way that is helpful if you have been studying the text or are turning to this commentary among others to study a particular part of the biblical book. I admit, having read this book all the way through, I can't say I remember anything specific from the first half (or more) of the book. There are a few running threads thematically, but they are broad enough that they don't serve as a framing to keep things in order. The book feels less like a whole and more like an essay collection, or at times something worse: a text where all the parts just kind of blend together in one's mind.

There are a couple of other quirks specific to academic biblical studies-types that make this difficult to read at times. Yes, the Hebrew is transliterated into English, but there's a lot of it, as well as a lot citations. I appreciate this in scholarly works, but it clutters up a page you may be trying to read for pleasure. There are also no section headers beyond naming the section of the text being discussed.

Most irritatingly, Peter J. Leithart never seems to have met a text out of which he cannot pull out some sort of chiastic structure. EVERY SINGLE section of biblical text discussed in this book has significant page space devoted to the chiastic breakdown of a text, whether it helps in understanding it or not, and whether the structure seems legitimate or not. He seems to simply assume that this is the shape of the ancient Hebrew mind, and every written creation is fundamentally shaped around chiasms. Biblical scholarship, however, has long shown this not to be the case and, what's more, it has shown that even when there is a chiastic structure, it is not as necessary to meaning as once thought–it may just be how it's organized and has no deeper meaning.

There was one last frustration I had with this text, and I admit some of it may be my fault. Throughout, Leithart writes as if you have the specific chapter in question either right in front of you or mostly internalized. I do not. I read this commentary because of my lack of familiarity with Chronicles. But most all the time he speaks as if you just read the section under discussion or know what he's talking about. I probably should have read the text beside this book, but it just wasn't feasible most times.

But more to the point, that's not been how this commentary series usually has worked. It is a “theological” commentary series, not a “biblical” one, meaning it's not so much about the ins and outs of Hebrew grammar and historical context (though those play a role for sure), but MORE about how these ancient texts shape our theological imagination and spiritual lives. And for that end, I find this lacking. Most other volumes summarize the text being discussed or include longer quotations of a verse or section. They recognize that the book is not supposed to be a verse-by-verse close examination of the text, but an application of the text to the theology and life of the reader. The Christian connections here, when present, are beautiful and profound, but they are not frequent (even when they'd seem obvious!). I wish there were more.

But still, as one among other commentaries you turn to when studying, teaching, or preaching through anything in Chronicles, this book is invaluable and helpful. I think it deviates somewhat from the overall mission of the commentary series, but not at all in a way that makes it bad or unhelpful overall.

This is the fifth out of a six volume, massive biography of Thomas Jefferson. In these hundreds of pages, just his second term as president is covered. As with the other volumes, Malone goes into incredible detail, practically going week by week in Jefferson's life, it seems, for these four years.

I've said this before, and I will say it again: I have read multiple biographies on a bunch of the key individuals of that founding generation of the country, and in all of them, Thomas Jefferson was the villain. Even in Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton's biography, Jefferson comes off as the most ominous and terrible presence in that man's life, and not Aaron Burr.

So many of the people that knew Jefferson best described him as calculating, duplicitous, hypocritical, and arrogant. And yet, for the first four volumes in this current series, Malone has reflexively praised and defended Jefferson in spite of his wrongs. In reference to those, he consistently finds some sort of excuse, reason, or explanation; or shrugs off as not that big of a deal; or chalks it up to regular human foibles.

This has frustrated me, and I have been really looking forward to this fifth volume because to me, this second term of Jefferson's presidency, was the most clearly and self-evidently corrupt and terrible of this man's entire life. I was really curious how Malone was going to approach it.

So how does he fare? As poorly as I had feared.

All of those defense mechanisms I mentioned before, are doubled and tripled down on. Granted, some of Jefferson's worst acts may have only been discovered more recently since this biography was written, but still, it is bewildering to me the pretzels this author will twist himself into just to justify Jefferson or redirect the blame away from him.

Jefferson sics his attorney general and the entire legal apparatus of the federal government against his former vice president for trying to do something that was not even illegal at the time and charging him with treason–and retrying him a couple of times for similar charges trying to get one thing to stick. He does relentless attacks on the Judiciary, defying court orders towards him, claiming immunity simply as President, and was the first president to try to make the argument that he was above the law because he had better things to do than follow court orders about his presidential conduct and business. He takes the country into economic collapse because he makes terrible decisions in diplomacy and ends up cutting off trade from all outside countries, and the next president (his BFF Madison) has to be the one to admit defeat and roll back this failed economic warfare, eventually resulting in the War of 1812. After being swept into the office on his opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson then turns around and enacts similar legislation when people in the media are criticizing this embargo.

And all along, through this book, Malone has justifications and reasons that he gives for all of it. I understand that the real human subjects of biographies do not fall simply into the flattened caricatures of villains in novels. But you can still say that somebody acted selfishly, or badly, or unwisely.

In this book, Malone's most frequent defense is to blame other people and to say that Jefferson surely could not have known about such and such thing; or to say that Jefferson did not seem to comment on or say anything about a particular matter and so we have to assume the best of him.

Malone says this even though there are a lot of insight about Jefferson we have because of occasional recipients of Jefferson's letters did not follow his instructions to burn the letter so their contents don't get out (which is his “usual custom”). He also tells people in several letters not to write down a certain thing so they can discuss something in person and there not be a written record of it. Malone quotes from all these letters, without pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that there clearly seems to be a huge body of Jefferson's thought and writings we don't know about precisely because of Jefferson's design and him not wanting us to know about it. Therefore, Jefferson himself is not an absolutely trustworthy narrator of his own story. We have to view many of his actions through the eyes of others. And when you do that, you get a much more negative picture of the man than Malone gives.

And yet, just as with the other volumes, I am really torn. When it comes to a portrait of Jefferson, Malone is clearly biased to the point of distortion. I am thousands of pages into Jefferson's life, and I still don't know who the man is, and the picture I have is dramatically different than the one that this author is trying to promote.

And yet, the granular detail in these books is so fascinating and interesting. As pure historical account of how politics, foreign policy, and governance played out, this book is invaluable. Most other biographies of Jefferson devote a 30-page chapter to the Aaron Burr trial, and a 30-page chapter to the embargo–and that's it. And even then, they kind of float above everything and give a bird's-eye view of all that happened.

This book, however, goes day by day into the events surrounding the decisions that caused these events. Malone admirably jumps between diplomatic efforts in other countries and what was going on there, and the discussions that the administration was having amongst themselves here in America while awaiting word from overseas. It shows just how difficult it was to do foreign policy with an ocean between you and the rest of the world, and no electronic communication. We intuitively know that in a sense, but this book really hammers home how that affected things here.

The one exception to this, however, is the single most complicated and convoluted situation Jefferson was ever involved in: the events surrounding Aaron Burr which led to his treason trial. In his attempt to explain all that was happening, Malone gets lost in the trees and loses the forest. I do not think that he prepares the reader with a good overall framework within which to fit these day-by-day (and sometimes hour-by-hour) accounts of what was going on simultaneously with multiple people in multiple places and countries in order to understand this. Other more recent books have done this better, like Nancy Isenberg's Aaron Burr biography, “Fallen Founder”, which I cannot recommend highly enough.

And so, as an analysis of Jefferson, this volume once again fails in my view. And yet as a history and an account of the story of his life and those around him, it is invaluable. It is well written and clear and at times almost thrilling. The pacing is well done and Incredibly complicated events are explained comprehensively yet deftly. And so, as long as you go into this volume with a clear view towards Malone's biases, I do think this book is fantastic and a worthy read.

A remarkable book that cannot help but shape and form you and the rest of your life. It is honest, vulnerable, gracious, and wise. It will also shake you and bring out fear and pain while forcing you to face and think about the hardest parts of human existence. This book will not leave me for the rest of my life, and I am glad for that.

I went into this book skeptical. I really thought it was going to be one of those corny “analyses” of “urban culture”, that ended up falling into a definite “side” and parroting a specific angle of the political spectrum. But no, this book is nuanced, comprehensive, and profound. It gives shocking insight into impoverished and marginalized communities, giving them dignity, but not papering over or excusing anything. Every person should read this book to get a better idea of how such communities live and persist. All sides of the political spectrum will find food for thought and challenges to their notions. If you work in or near a city, or have strong opinions about “those people” (whoever they might be for you), then this is a book for you to read and be better informed, even though there exists few answers or proposals in these pages, it is a first step to see the problems and gifts of these communities in stark relief and to wrestle with their history and implications.

Good gracious, this volume covering Jefferson's first term goes at a million miles an hour. It only covers four years, but they were surely event-filled. The same period in single-volume biographies usually covers only a chapter or two. But there's a lot. However, at the same time, I somehow don't know if this book needed to be this long. At times I enjoy the leisurely pace at which Dumas writes, but when I look back at the long book I just read and realized it just covered four years, it's a little mind-boggling.

As continues to be the case through all these biographies, I don't know that I have a fully formed impression of who Jefferson is as a human. He is so aloof, and so frequently moves against the principles and values that he promotes in his writings, philosophy, theoretical declarations that he's so known for, it's difficult to get a read on the guy. He obviously knew that he was going to be well-known throughout this country's history, so it seems that every one of his letters and diaries and journals were written to obscure what is really going on inside of him in favor of what he wants posterity to think of him.

And what further obscures this is that Dumas continues to act as Jefferson's chief apologist to explain and expound upon this man whom he has already deemed to be worthy, good, and righteous.

Nevertheless, it is a fascinating time which is covered in this book. It was the real beginning of party politics in America, where the President was also buying into the machinations and movements of the party spirit. Our first two presidents were very intentional and self-conscious about not giving in to party passions, and deliberately went against them when they could. You could not look at the actions and platforms of Washington and Adams and say they neatly fit either of the emerging parties.

Jefferson, however, is different. He was the first president nominated and elected on the basis of party platforms and affiliations. What's a bit frustrating in these volumes by Dumas is that he vividly portrays the partisanship of every single person and part of the national political culture and institutions, but seems to believe that Jefferson transcends and floats above them. Then when people just happen to do the things he wants or when he makes moves that absolutely further entrench and empower his party and destroy the other, Dumas writes about it as if he was just following his own ideals and trying to be a good president while all these other people were taking advantage of it for their own partisan gain.

Reading other biographies, though, it is clear that Jefferson was rabidly partisan and would sometimes do things just for the sake of party even if it went against his own previously expressed principles. Indeed, much of the Federalist criticisms levied at Jefferson were that he was hypocritical to the very Declaration of Independence he wrote.

This volume covers some exciting events in America's history, including the conflict with the Barbary pirates, the Louisiana purchase, and the removal of Aaron Burr from the vice presidential spot for the 1804 election (although admittedly, this was a much less dramatic affair than one would assume, even without having seen the musical “Hamilton”). And I'll be honest: I'm a little split in how what I think of how Dumas covers these events.

Dumas is good about telling these stories in excruciating detail, at points going day by day, and admirably juggles the acts of different people happening concurrently (especially when it comes to the Louisiana purchase). The artistic side of my brain was a little frustrated that he did not add some novelistic flair and drama to these inherently dramatic ordeals. More contemporary biographers have had fun writing these stories of espionage, war, and intrigue in ways that are far more gripping.

And yet, my more analytical side really does appreciate the way Dumas captures how relatively mundane these things were for the real people as they were happening, and how they were more stressful than exciting for those involved. History often just isn't that dramatic when experienced in real time.

So if you want some of the most comprehensive accounts of these events and their accompanying political intrigues and constitutional arguments, and have an ability to import your own sense of drama into receiving those facts, then you can't do much better than this. But if you need someone to get you excited about history, then maybe look elsewhere.

I will end with my biggest frustration of this particular volume. More than any other, this one seems to have no awareness of any existence of the world other than Thomas Jefferson.

In the introduction, Dumas explicitly says that he wrestles with this. He points out that for biographers, it's always a balancing act, but in the end he had to err on the side of this being the history of one man and not the history of an entire country. But still, the country is just as much a product of Jefferson's person and presidency as he is a product of the country itself. And so throughout the book Dumas makes very odd decisions on the secondary people and events he chooses to zoom in on and those he chooses to ignore all together.

Aaron Burr, for example, is one of the most important people in the political life of Thomas Jefferson, and his actions dramatically shape and guide Jefferson's story for over a decade, and yet Dumas seems to go out of his way to say as little about Burr as a person as possible, perhaps out of a fear that if he starts going down the Aaron Burr rabbit hole he may never come out. (Luckily, the next volume that covers Jefferson's second term will force his hand to discuss Burr at length.)

Yet even as Dumas says so little about Aaron Burr, he goes so much in depth into the impeachment trial of judge Samuel Chase, going through Chase's individual opinions on each partisan thing that contributed to his impeachment, and goes through every partisan move surrounding the impeachment and the speeches and the charges over each day of his trial.

And yet Dumas himself makes it clear that Jefferson was intentional to not have anything to do with this trial. The President made no comments about it, neither public nor private, he was not present for the trial, and he played no role in the impeachment being considered nor tried.

Other than being a headache for his own political party, the impeachment literally has nothing to do with Thomas Jefferson. Yet Dumas chooses to focus in on the granular minutiae and ignore other people and events that were far more influential in Jefferson's life.

Previous volumes have had a lot of information about the world at large–America's earliest days and the cultural and philosophical forces and people that created Thomas Jefferson.

This volume, however, has none of that. You pretty much just follow Jefferson and his discussions with his cabinet members and his partisans arguing in the media. We have no idea who is managing Monticello while he is gone and how that's going. We have no insight into the continuing building and development of Washington DC and how that might be a shaping the politics there. We aren't even given insight into Jefferson's finances or personal relationships and friendships at this time. It's just the political story of Thomas Jefferson for these four years, and an overtly biased apologetic for him at that.

Some sort of eye towards the broader world and how they are experiencing Jefferson's presidency would go a long way in giving insight to the man himself and how aware he was or not of his place in the world. But there's literally no discussion along those lines in this entire volume.

Still, this is still the most comprehensive account of these years of Jefferson's life that have ever been written, and for that they are still valuable, even if I do feel that this is perhaps the weakest volume I've read so far. I'm hopeful for the next one though.

This book was a little more fun than the others in the series so far. I haven't come to really understand (or even like) Jefferson all that much to this point in his life but I know the last half of this series will cover Jefferson at his worst, most vicious, and unprincipled (in my opinion). For that reason, this book is fascinating in charting “the turn”: here we get the last little bit Jefferson's principled “innocence” and his slow turn into a partisan fighter.

This book covers his last year as Secretary of State, his three year respite at Monticello, and his single term as Vice-President into the Election of 1800. That's an interesting transition from cabinet member to head of the country. Once he stepped down as Secretary of State, he expressed no interest in a future in politics. And yet, what's most fascinating is seeing how that interest was birthed–or rather, revealed both to others and himself. It's hard to read his words and thoughts denying any interest in party politics and reconcile it with his actions–all while he genuinely seemed to believe what he was saying.

This volume, more than any others, show us Jefferson the Self-Deluded–the one who lies to himself fully and totally, under the guise of principles and intellect. Things that appear so conniving and disingenuous to us on the outside get interpreted by Jefferson himself as entirely consistent with who he has been all along, or at least as wise flexibility to the circumstances around him.

That gives this volume almost a sense of gothic horror: a tale of a man willingly taken somewhere he thought he never wanted to be, so naturally and easily turned into a man he claimed was not within his character to be. It's a lesson to us all in how we can so easily become what we hate, all while feeling “from the inside”, as it were, that we are people of nobility, pragmatism, and integrity. Every villain is the hero of their own story.

What gives this an added dimension is that Dumas doesn't see Jefferson that way at all. He continues his tendency to act as Jefferson apologist, going at lengths to explain Jefferson's turns, though at least he recognizes that Jefferson is being inconsistent for the sake of convenience–he just waves it away as the pragmatism of leadership, attentiveness to the moment, and not letting his past dictate his future.

It is shocking how highly and nobly Jefferson views himself, even while sowing the seeds of destruction, chaos, and partisan warfare that are in our politics even today. Always with an eye towards his own legacy and portrayal by history, always pretending to be transcendently above the fray, Thomas Jefferson is revealed in this volume to be one of the most manipulative actors in American history, all while being blind to it within himself.

(On a personal note, I imagine this is how some people view me. That fact makes this volume even more impactful and humbling.)

Another highlight of this volume compared to the others is during Jefferson's Monticello sabbatical between political projects. These relatively quiet few years will be the last for him and us in the narrative of his life before his final years back on the “Little Mountain”. And so Dumas wisely and entertainingly takes this period to do deep dives into the interesting subjects around Jefferson's life. Whole chapters are dedicated to 18th-century architecture, farming, daily life, economics, and yes, slavery (in which we get our first defense from Dumas against the Sally Hemings charges). Each of these vignettes paint an in-depth portrait of those topics which could be whole articles are books in-and-of-themselves. They are certainly a highlight of this volume.

Nevertheless, politics does return to the narrative, with the Alien and Sedition Acts being the platform on which Jefferson can be “reluctantly dragged” back into partisan battle, becoming the Republican mafia godfather in the background, slowly laying a groundwork for his eventual Presidency.

Stylistically, the book maintains the same mid-century “just the facts, ma'am” tone. Dumas' account of the Election of 1800 doesn't have the excitement that other writers lend to this strange period in American history, nor does he meditate on the symbolic significance of the moment, but it is a fun and fast-moving (and still somewhat confusing) series of months. And the whole issue with the Jefferson-Burr tie is told with none of the intrigue or subterfuge that historians usually give to this time. It makes the whole thing seem less dramatic which, while that may be true to reality, can feel like a letdown.

The campaign was vicious and, of course, Dumas lays the blame elsewhere for the egregious attacks on John Adams, thought the two men had been long-time friends and Jefferson could have brought the carnage to an end. But ambition cloaked as principle is a nasty thing. But by the end of this book, we see this feature of Jefferson in full blossom, even if not at its worst quite yet. But here we see the beginnings, and Dumas gives us a more-than-competent and detailed account of how Jefferson got there.

This is truly a fascinating, if unexciting memoir by Thomas Jefferson. It's a little frustrating because it ends right after he resigns as secretary of state, and before all the real excitement of his life starts. Nevertheless, in the sections that cover his diplomatic career during the war, he definitely names names and throws people under the bus, which is always the real fun of a political memoir, isn't it?

Either way, as a historical document this is important and interesting to read. We often know our founders through snippets, or political documents, or letters and journals. But we don't often read at length their own thoughts for the public about the politics of the time. It does help give some perspective, as they often find things to be of the utmost importance that we barely get taught in history classes now. It just goes to show you that we are at a historical disadvantage in the present, without clarity of what is going to be significant and what is not.

So, as history and as a document it's interesting, but as a piece of writing, it isn't riveting or flowing or funny or exciting. It's the writing of an overly serious 30-something who thinks he has had enough excitement for a full lifetime and wants to share that will also shifting blame and explaining things. Little does he know how the narrative of his life was to unfold after this ended. But I would not read this for fun.

The various appendices are interesting in one degree. It's a spattering of letters, private thoughts, and documents he wrote that shed some light on the nuances and weeds involved in creating a country from scratch. So that sort of world building is great. But again, I really wouldn't read this for fun.

For me, I read this in conjunction to some other Thomas Jefferson biographies to see Jefferson's own side of events which I had just read about. I really thought it was going to be way more exciting than it was. It's just really dry. But if you have the fortitude for such historical nerding out, then you'll enjoy it.

At the end of the day, while these biographies are the standard for dep th and getting into the weeds of Jefferson's life, they're not the easiest books to read. Malone's prose leaves a little to be desired by the modern reader. As far as mid-century historians go, it is a very approachable tone and way of writing, relatively speaking. But still, it is a straightforward narrative by a man that really loves Thomas Jefferson, and who is inclined to assume the best of him and defend him unless he absolutely cannot. However, it doesn't happen that often because he doesn't add interpretive flourishes into too much of this book. There's not much room for him to insert himself into the narrative because it really is a play-by-play of each passing day of Jefferson's early adult life, through to the end of his first term as Secretary of State. As for detail on Thomas Jefferson, this book has no rival. Malone is able to cogently hold together the strands of Jefferson's diplomatic work and the early controversies in our country. He's somehow able to contain so much detail and specificity and still feel like he's just telling you a story at his own pace. There's nothing rushed or forced into the narrative, he just takes as much time as it needs to say the things he wants to say.

And yet, once more, to the modern sentiment, the book comes up short. Once more, for what it is and when it was written, it is heads and shoulders above many, many other books of history from that time. But nowadays, we read these books not so much to get the facts and the story, but to get a feel for what it was like to be there at that time, or to get inside the psyche of these figures and to truly understand them as well as we can from this distance. And that is just so far from Malone's intent here. It is striking that one can know such minutia and details about one human beings existence and still not have a gras p on who they are as a human. On one hand, this does go to show you that the human being is far, far more than some of their parts. But on the other, we want to know that human being beyond the some of their parts.

I'm anticipating that this book occupies an awkward spot in the series. The first book traveled the earliest days of Jefferson's life, things that even the most educated lay person has never heard. It's a lot of new things about what formed and shaped Jefferson and what made him who he is. It paints a vivid picture of the earliest days of our country and what it was like to grow up there.

This book, however, covers his time in France and his early days of Secretary of State. Now, Jefferson himself ends his own autobiography at a similar point that this particular book ends. He has a well-known unfinished personal memo where he does not know if his existence has left a positive mark on the world so he writes a list of his accomplishments to see if they are worthy of having lived. And he writes that around the same point that this book ends.

Yes, he had written the declaration of Independence, but in the earliest formation of our country, that's kind of all he did, And even in that, he only wrote the first draft and then it was mangled by the rest of the convention, much to his own pain and regret. Outside of the declaration, Jefferson doesn't really do much during the time span of this book. Yes, compared to most human beings, by the time this book ends he has accomplished more significant things than most human beings ever do, but even he has no idea that there is so much more crazy stuff about to come in his life. But we do.

And so this book will inevitably be one of the relatively unexciting chapters of his life, save for a few spikes here and there. And so, as a book, it may be unfair to hold Malone to a modern standard of history and biography, and to try to infuse this segment of Jefferson's life with a bit more pizzazz. But still, I think this book will maybe be the least exciting and enjoyable of the series, even though it is by no means “bad”.

This is only the first volume, and admittedly, this is the part of Jefferson's life about which there's the fewest records (due to his early life and Benedict Arnold's destruction of papers when he invaded Richmond), but I still don't know that I have a feel for Jefferson's psyche. Perhaps that's a very modern desire when reading biography (and this book is from an older school style of history writing–is from the 1940s). On its own terms, it's a remarkable feat. The pace is interesting. Knowing he will take many volumes to tell this story, he is in no rush. It's a leisurely pace with some pleasant detours and asides now and then. He treats Jefferson as a man to respect and study as a specimen, and not so much a beloved icon to love, defend, and explain away. I like that. This is plain, spoken storytelling, going into the weeds in a way that does not grow old or stale. Still I wish I knew the man Jefferson just a BIT more.

What an interesting commentary. It is neither an academic technical or critical commentary, nor is it a devotional commentary for laypersons. Instead, it is more like a monograph making a particular argument about the book of Chronicles, and written in the form of a commentary. He does go section by section through the entire books, But works hard to fit every section into his argument. His argument about the book, namely, that it is identity formation for post-exilic Israel, and painting a picture of God's kingdom after the exile as a “liturgical empire”, and reframing it in a way that the people can truly live it still, is undoubtedly correct. But it does get a little tedious when that same interpretive framework is hammered home section after section after section.

The greatest strength of Hahn's commentary–and The reason to get it despite its lack of technical or devotional examination–is his rigorous canonical and intertextual reading of the work. Treating the text and it's received form and as a whole literary work, he situates this in the life and scripture of Israel in a way I have not seen other commentaries do. The connections between this text and the rest of the Hebrew Bible are astonishing and a lumen the book in shocking ways. The parallels, continuities, contrasts, and discontinuities serve to open this book up in a way that other types of commentaries are unable to do.

The book itself is structured in a way so as to be used by all of those studying chronicles, either Christian or Jewish, so Christian interpretations are split off into a separate small section at the end of each chapter, which can be disappointing. In this way, it feels much more like a technical commentary, We're devotional or spiritual readings are generally excluded, focusing mainly on the text and context in front of it. And yet, the questions that usually consume academic commentaries, including historiography, authorship, textual criticism, and reader response are not really anywhere to be found here. There are broad mentions of the arguments that scholars throughout the book of Chronicles, but they are mainly referenced in passing in favor of a purely textual response.

And it is in this dogged commitment to both not leaving the text while also not getting bogged down in the details that really lets this commentary shine as a unique contribution. If anything, it then feels more like a commentary for the seminary-educated and trained pastor. The sustained thematic unity throughout all sections of the book often feels like a sermon series with a theme tying together the pieces. However, the citations and bibliography show that a lot of technical and academic work is underneath this accessible commentary, which is itself a feat.

In terms of formatting, the book frequently uses transliterated Hebrew in individual words or small phrases, but it does not make reference to Hebrew grammar or texts in ways that a non-academic could not follow. There is not a full author's translation of the entire text offered. One thing lacking from the formatting of the text that can make this difficult for general use is the lack of chapter and verse citations in the section headings themselves. The chapter itself covers a specific set of verses, but within that entire chapter you are on your own to find out where a particular section you want to study may be.

So on one hand, this book does work as a monograph to read from beginning to end (as I did), but it also assumes that you have the text right there in front of you, or are very familiar with the section being discussed. It can get confusing and you can lose the trees in light of the forest if not. On the other hand, if you can find the section you want to study, the themes and arguments of this commentary are repeated so frequently in every single section, that no matter which section you want to study, you can still use this in a more piecemeal fashion as needed and still get the benefits of the author's perspective.

In short, this book is an incredibly valuable contribution especially to those that have some training in biblical and theological work and are wanting to teach the text to others. It could also serve as a beautiful devotional commentary for seminarians who have done too much academic work to enjoy most devotional commentaries, but also find the tedium of technical commentaries a little soul-sucking.

“Burr” is a great little book, chronicling the life of Aaron Burr. It mostly succeeds in doing this in a compelling way. But at times, one can get distracted by pace, plot, and prose–both when those items excel, and when they drag.

Gore Vidal has such an ease with language and wit and voice. He's just such a good writer. It's easy to get lost in his prose much of the time, but other times, you can tell when he's trying to be clever, and you can see what he's trying to do, and this can get distracting.

I literally went straight to this book from reading the first Aaron Burr biography ever written by a professionally trained scholar (Nancy Isenberg's “Fallen Founder”), and it was difficult to engage with Vidal's treatment of Burr, as it seemed to fall into the caricatures and traps of Burr's portrayal which I had just spent many hundred pages hearing get debunked. Isenberg's Burr is much more introverted, thoughtful, and eccentric than Vidal's charismatic, swash-buckling dandy.

Nevertheless, he did give life to this character in a fascinating way, and the events of Burr's life unfold in this novel (through a device of Burr dictating his memoirs) in more clarity than other biographers have offered. There were parts that I still didn't understand that, in Vidal's retelling, came alive and became clearer than when shared in nonfiction telling.

As a novel, though, the book does an excellent job giving insight and color to all aspects of the American experience at the turn of the 19th-century. When history is being lived or recounted, it is fascinating, thrilling, and really makes you inhabit the time like no nonfiction account has been able to do. You realize just how many the world was, even then, and how little people really change generation to generation.

However, in order to tell history in a novelized form, Vidal has to jump through some excruciating hoops to create justifications, situations, and devices in which it makes narratival sense for a historical figure to simply recount their life (which, to us, is “history”). He does this primarily through a fictional main character, Charles Schuyler, who is an aspiring writer swept into the yellow journalism of the day and is encouraged to get dirt from Burr which can ruin Presidential hopeful Martin van Buren. This leads Schuyler to “interview” Burr for his “memoirs”, thus creating the conceit within which Burr can wax on about his biography.

This is all well and fine, as far as narrative devices go. But Vidal has to create a whole life, drama, and conflict for Schuyler that occurs outside and away from Burr. And this is where the novel drags, especially in the beginning (it takes far too long for the momentum to start). Vidal seems to fashion Charles as a Nick Carraway to Burr's Gatsby, but his life and thought is never really that interesting, and so the stretches of plot which focus on him really drag. It's always a little frustrating when literally every other character in a book is more interesting than the actual narrator and one in whose head you remain throughout the narrative.

Additionally, there are moments when you can tell Vidal is offering a wink and a nod and bit of cleverness, and it can be distracting. When you start reading about all of these early Americans, you quickly realize an odd feature: American was SMALL. Everyone you've ever heard of intersected with everyone else you've ever heard of. And so you can't tell any story of any one's life without name dropping constantly. You can tell that sometimes Vidal revels in finding a reason for a name to be dropped so you can see the connection and other times he plays coy with names that he either assumes you know or wants to be mysterious.

This can be distracting from the book as a novel on its own terms and leads to just a few too many moments of “I see what you did there, Vidal”. And then you remember you're fundamentally reading a history book.

And this leads to my last little quibble with the book–or rather this KIND of book. This isn't historical fiction. Burr is self consciously trying to novelize history. He writes in his Preface–and conveys in his prose–a certain commitment to history such that you can trust him as a historian. And yet, there HAS to be license taken at points, even if it's in making up the style of conversation in which otherwise accurate facts are conveyed. The fundamental frustration for someone wired like me is that I can't really know which parts he's making up and which is “history”. He'll drop little details that I did not read about in any other biographies of these early Americans. So when that happens, what should I think? Should I implicitly trust it as historical (as he seems to want me to do), or should I not make a big deal out of it, for it could very be creative license? This line is never clearly drawn.

Nevertheless, I am probably trying too hard to find fault in this book, as the novel is so celebrated and extoled by most. And it is certainly worth reading. You will grow in your understanding and intuitive sense of early America. You will see how politics and the media have always been the way they are now, and very little has changed. You will be awed, encouraged, and dismayed all at once. There were beautiful moments, tragic ones, and humanizing turns throughout these pages. You will enjoy it and grow in your appreciation of this country and understanding of its darker, more human moments.

I originally read this book over ten years ago. At that time, it kind of glazed over me and very little stick with me, honestly. This time, I was able to really take it in more. I also had the added benefit of trying something new: reading this concurrently with John Ferling's Adams biography. I'd read a chapter in Ferling (which, before McCullough, had been the most authoritative and popular Adams biography), and then read through the same time period in McCullough, then go back to Ferling.

It was a fascinating exercise and well worth the time if you're able to do it. It highlighted all the more both the strengths and weaknesses of both biographies.

At its core, Ferling's biography is an examination of the psychology and world of John Adams. So while you get a greater and more penetrating view of the man himself, many of the more interesting bits of his life are compressed or skimmed over if Ferling believes it didn't have all that much of a shaping effect on Adams's own self.

McCullough, on the other hand, seems to be more a biography written by a fanboy, and not in a bad way! He is still scholarly and measured, even in the face of Adams' faults, though he can romanticize and infuse some events with more drama than they deserve. This takes for riveting reading, though, and makes things more enthralling.

While Ferling does deep dives into colonial life and it's cities, as well as historical events like the Boston Tea Party, McCullough minimizes these things and sticks almost exclusively to the things John was experiencing. Whereas the former book offered a huge moment by moment recounting of the Boston Tea Party, for example, McCullough offers one sentence in reference to it–because Adams had no role in it and was not there. While Adams is overseas, McCullough spends most of his time with Adams without jumping back and lingering on life for Abigail and his kids back home.

While this leaves some holes in the story, it does allow space to zoom in and sit with some incredible moments in Adams' life, like his meeting with King George or the road trip he and Thomas Jefferson took before their relationship fell apart–both moments that occupy many pages in McCullough, but warrant single line references in Ferling.

I said this book was written by a fanboy of John Adams, and not in a bad way. It reads like a bunch of old friends of John Adams sitting around a table after he is dead and them going back and forth telling the old stories of the most interesting times of his life–moments and events that may not themselves have shaped Adams all that profoundly, but nonetheless are funny or intriguing in their own right.

I only have two big criticisms. First, because it focuses so tightly on certain events, it keeps having to backtrack in time to explore other themes or other things that were going on concurrently with the story he was just telling. This can lead to some confusion about exactly where you are in the timeline of Adams' life. McCullough has a strange writing tick where he will at times write about something and then go back in time to tell you something he did not tell you about back then that might shed light on the current event, or jump forward in time to tell you about a thing that will be coming in the future that might connect to the thing he's talking about now. Maybe it was just because I was jumping between two books, but this could make it confusing.

My second criticism is that McCullough really overly romanticizes John and Abigail's relationship. Whereas Ferling can directly say that Adams was a terrible spouse to his wife (which he was), McCullough really wants to make John and Abigail Adams into one of America's foremost romance stories in history. Generally, he does not shy away from the faults and failings of John Adams, but this is an oversight for sure.

Nevertheless, it's a fun read, comprehensive and scholarly for sure. There's a reason it is the most popular John Adams biography around. It does deserve that for its scope, clarity, and prose. Definitely worth a read.

A fantastic biography, that is more all-encompassing of Adams' psychology and relationships that the more-popular McCullough biography. This one deals now with Adams' faults and is clearly no hagiography, though you'd respect for Adams is evident. The prose is clear, though he glides over moments and times that I wish he had more detail on (Adams' first meeting with George, he and Jefferson's road trip in the english countryside, what exactly happened to Jefferson over time), though the moments he does zoom in on are fascinating portrayals of the time (his Boston Tea party and colonial Philadelphia reconstructions are fantastic). This, I feel, is the smoothest and most coherent read among the Washington biographies, and again, is a more penetrating and full portrayal of Adams the man and not just the specific events of his life. McCullough's is better at vividly portraying specific moments and their drama, but it flows less easily then Ferling's work. This is a shorter book, and it's astonishing how comprehensive it is for it's length. If you have to choose one biography of John Adams, I'd probably choose this one.

What an odd book. The premise sounds enticing enough: a dystopian novel in which in habitants of a large island have to endure government enforced “forgettings” of every day objects. It's a terrifying premise in one sense. On any day, the citizens may wake up to see that their memories of something have been erased and everyone has to destroy destroy all of those items. They are made to forget birds, perfume, ribbons, emeralds, boats, etc. The Memory Police also terrorize the island, destroying what remnants of these items remain, as well as arrest and round up the requisite dystopian resistance movement and those that, interestingly, have a genetic difference that keep them from succumbing to the “forgetting”.

Fascinating idea, right? That's about where the interesting parts end. However, the last few pages of the book get so weird, are so unexpected, and leave you in a state of shock it ALMOST makes the book's shortcomings seem more intentional and of a whole. But first, let's talk about it's issues.

The narrator is flat and two-dimensional. She speaks of her past and longings, but only as much as moves the story along. The types of things an ACTUAL human in such a situation would recall and muse about never arise. Has she ever had a romantic feeling or dalliance before the time we meet her? Has she ever had a job in this society other than the books she writes? What does she cook? What does she know of the history of the island, it's government, etc? We never know. We hear about her parents and her schooling–that's about it, and we spend the entire time in her head as she muses about the world in which she lives.

She repeatedly does things for which there is no prior indication she would ever do. In the beginning she seems an incredibly passive “keep your head down, don't rock the boat” kind of character, and then in a moment she's building a secret bunker underneath her house to hide families and friends in this underground movement. There's no growth or thought or moment of crisis, decision-making, or being pushed to this. It just... happens, and there's no subsequent reflection on it.

Every other character is only flatter. Her editor that she hides away is a married man and they begin sleeping with each other. Do they ever talk about how they rationalize it? Or do they feel ANYTHING about it? No. She has a line or two about “needing” someone in all the stress. But that's it. Is there any tension or romance? No. But it's also not purely mechanical as people's humanity is stripped away in such a society. It's just a thing that happens a few times.

The plot is even more difficult to get through. It is slow and unexciting, and there are moments that are supposed to be “exciting” but it tries too hard with weak prose to build tension, convey “action” and it falters. There are SO many massive logical gaps in the way this world is structured. Now, in a sci-fi dystopian set-up, I'm find with not everything being spelled out or having an answer. It's fine to have just one premise and play with it. But at least let that premise itself be thought out for more than a few minutes.

This book's plot is filled with every single of the mundane and boring dystopian novel tropes, with none of the exciting ones. It has an underground resistance, a secret room, a dead parent who left behind clues against the “regime”, a visit to the government headquarters, a party by dissidents which is broken up by an unexpected visit from the police, the “tense” police search of the residence while the character sees the one thing out of place that could give them up, the character that seems to know everything about this regime and how to fight it, but didn't let us know that until way too late in the book, people sleeping together because they're just around each other, caricatured “evil” government officials that are just one-note brutes that have no coherent philosophy about WHY the government does what it does. So and so forth.

The more interesting tropes are missing, though: fighting against the regime (she's hiding a “fugitive” in her basement, but for what end?), learning more about how the world became this way, meeting up with the resistance, experiencing the arrest of our heroes and ushering them into the inner workings of this society, finding out what happens to rebels, discovering what all these scientists are doing once they're invited to work for the government, enjoying a philosophical sparring match with government officials over life, society, and what makes us human?

I do need at, though, that there is an odd mechanic employed here of a “novel with then novel”, that is interesting in its own right, though not much more so. The narrator is writing this novel and there are portions of the book that are excerpts from what she's written. They're interesting at moments, but not enough to turn this book around.

That ending, though. Really, it's just the last few pages, but it's so haunting, it's still with me days after finishing this. My concern, though, is that it almost seems like the novelist had this premise and this end in mind, and then just did a bunch of filler to get us there. This could have easily been a fantastic short story. I do feel duped having read this. The premise is exciting enough that you're like, “oh wow, I've GOT to see what she does with this!”

It's just sad that the answer is an overwhelming, “oh wow, not that much.”

What an odd book. You see all the elements that will mark the work of Murakami in the future, but they are in their early form. Especially with this one, which is the second in a series of four books, three of which I have read (and am currently also reading the fourth). Those latter two are giant novels of oddity, mystery, and pursuit, that is mostly disconnected entirely from these first two books. (In fact, Murakami took these first two novels out of circulation in English, presumably out of embarrassment over his earliest writing style.) In these first two novels, a milder version of his later oddity is there, but only in the last small portion of this book does a completely unrelated mystery plot pop up into the narrative that has nothing to do with what comes before it, but that mirrors much of the mystery aspects of the later books in this series. It's interesting to watch a master writer finds their voice in their first novels. For any fan of Murakami, this is interesting reading, though not necessary. But still, it's a fast read and really enjoyable. Funny and moving, and extremely quirky and charming.

What a remarkable piece of religious fiction. There are no easy answers, no tricks. Just raw honesty about faith, doubt, suffering, and trial. It shows what a substantive faith looks like in the face of life's brutality, and how one's faith can be fragile even while it's object is unwavering, solid, strong, and silent. A book I'll return to in the future, for sure.

If you know of Martin Scorcese's film, but haven't seen it yet, let me encourage you to read this before seeing the film. I saw the film first, and I feel some of this story's most poignant, powerful, and moving moments lost some of their punch because I saw them coming. Also, the movie flattened and changed the dynamic between two of the main characters in a way that made the book's more complicated, nuanced depiction distracting. I think it's probably easier to mentally move from nuanced portrayal to flattened than the other way around.

Regardless, this book is soul-shaking in moments and gives voice to some of the deepest questions and whispers of our hearts, which we often can't articulate or feel shame in doing so. And yet, bringing them to light is the only way to assess them and offer them to the God who listens and moves, even when he does not speak.

What a great and fun introduction to Murakami's works and imaginative world. It drags a little at times, but it's always interesting, odd, and contemplative. Even at its most ridiculous, it is subdued and understated, as if nothing is wrong and weird. And I loved it. It was fun, but not (how do I put it) exciting? Thrilling? So if that's what you want out of a fantastical mystery, this isn'it it. But if you're looking for a fun, quirky book with moments of beauty and profundity that presses into the isolation of the human experience and the temptations of the pursuit for meaning in the midst of absurdity, this just might be it.

This is the first book I've read by Murakami. From what I understand, it is his first novel, and he hates it. He has removed its publication (at least in English) and it is difficult to find. However, what a remarkable book this is. Especially is this is truly his first novel, it has such confidence and ease. There is no performative aspect to it, like he has still learning to be a novelist. The story is spare, and odd, but with aching beauty in moments. It is really great. I'm eager to continue through his oeuvre, reading the next book in this “Rat” series, “Pinball, 1974”, another book he did not want published in English any longer. But still, I can tell I am going to have a real love for the works of Murakami.

I was really expecting to love this book. But I was incredibly frustrated and disappointed by it. I will write a fuller review in the days to come. But in the meantime I should note that this is probably more of a 3.5 star book, though I'm putting it lower than that to try and correct for all of the over the top and, in my opinion, undeserved fawning this book has received. The characters are flat and run together, the plot is over-sentimentalized and forced, and, perhaps worst of all, even though the book is obviously a trying to give agency and voice to characters of color, it robs those characters of their complexity, ultimately robbing them of the dignity they deserve.

Anyway, this was such a frustrating book, especially in its latter half. Again, I will be writing a much longer review in the next several days to explain this more fully. But suffice it to say, the book does not meet the hype.