 |
GetTextbooks.com
Compare Prices & Save up to 90% |
|
|
|
| Login | Sign up | My Wish List |
 | | Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different by Gordon S. Wood ISBN-10: 9780143112082 ISBN-10: 0-14-311208-2 ISBN-13: 9780143112082 ISBN-13: 978-0-14-311208-2 Paperback 2007-05-29 Penguin (Non-Classics) Find Lowest Price |
Editorials | ||
Product Description In this brilliantly illuminating group portrait of the men who came to be known as the Founding Fathers, the incomparable Gordon Wood has written a book that seriously asks, “What made these men great?”—and shows us, among many other things, just how much character did in fact matter. The life of each—Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Paine—is presented individually as well as collectively, but the thread that binds these portraits together is the idea of character as a lived reality. They were members of the first generation in history that was self-consciously self-made—men who understood that the arc of lives, as of nations, is one of moral progress. | ||
Reviews | ||
More Analysis Than Narrative As with another of Gordon Woods' works, 'The Radicalism of The American Revolution' I'm sorry to say that, in both instances, I've been somewhat disappointed by the analytical style with which Wood approaches his subject matter. Unfortunately, for me, this is somewhat akin to reading a didactic analysis of a great story rather than the great story itself and I found myself struggling with boredom and counting the pages to the end of each chapter so that I could get on to my next book in my current obsession with the American Revolution. While I do not question Prof. Wood's academic capabilities, I do think that he tends more toward historical analysis than historical narrative. This analytical style leads inevitably to conclusions and statements that sometimes appear somewhat subjective. One example is the inclusion of Aaron Burr in this collection of character analyses. On one hand, Wood acknowledges that Burr is not generally considered a 'founder' of the United States yet repeatedly refers to 'the other founders' when comparing Burr with Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, etc. as if Burr were among them. His subsequent analysis of Burr's character as completely lacking the qualities of the true founders begs the question of why Burr is even making an appearance in this book in the first place. Another criticism I have is Wood's tendency to make passing references to individuals not generally well known to most readers, (such as the 18th century English literary figure, Samuel Johnson, to whom Wood refers three times as 'Dr. Johnson' and once as 'Samuel Johnson') without explaining who they are. This is a common flaw one finds in works by some academics who seem at times forgetful that they are writing for a readership that is somewhat broader than the professorial cliques within which they move. It is a rare scholar indeed who possesses both academic ability as well as a talent for engaging the reader. Prof. Wood appears decidedly better on the first point than the second. Also recommended: Washington's Crossing, Paul Revere's Ride'David Hackett Fischer' Alexander Hamilton 'Ron Chernow' America, The Last Best Hope 'William J. Bennett' | ||
Very analytical and wordy Here's what I think spawned this book: A brilliant historian with such a wealth of knowledge about the American Revolution had all these thoughts and opinions in his head, and he just had to get them out. So he wrote them down, and poof, there was "Revolutionary Characters" by Gordon Wood. I made the mistake of reading this book soon after it was released, and I just wasn't ready for the depth of the material because it had been a while since I was in college. After reading biographies on most of the key participants, I recently looked at this book again and got more out of it. It's a very interesting analysis of eight significant figures of the era -- I believe Aaron Burr was included over John Jay because he's more interesting, not because he was more important. If you're expecting short bios on these eight men, you'll be disappointed; it offers no such thing. It's almost all analysis, and to further that point, two of the longest sections in the book are the introduction and epilogue, which are essentially all analysis. The book is incredibly wordy at times, and it often reads like it was written for history professors. Basically, this is a useful book for those with knowledge of and interest in the late 1700s and early 1800s. But it's not for the average reader, and it in no way compares to Joseph Ellis' "Founding Brothers," or even "American Creation." | ||
OK thumbnail biographies in search of a tightly-argued thesis Wood's argues that the difference is that these Revolutionary leaders (the usual phalanx, plus Paine and Burr as exemplars of contrast) were set apart by the first-generation gentility, expressed in 18th Century Enlightenment terms, on the outskirts of the empirical centers in London and Paris, in the formation of their public character in a country where the government became not a derivative of the populace but a lent lease from the populace who retained it. In this way, expanding literacy and political discussion and voting rights empowered and raised public opinion to the level of gentlemanly discussion (if you were a Jeffersonian Republican), or dragged discourse down to the level of the common herd (if you were a Hamiltonian Federalist), which word to describe the common mass quickly became verboten. Not that well argued or written, Woods progresses from OK thumbnail biographies to his single-chapter conclusion in generalities instead of tightly-argued theses. | ||
Lots of Detailed Info The chapters on each of the founding fathers Woods wrote on included a lot of detailed character information in this book. The book provided background information on each person as well as information on their character. It was interesting to read about the contributions these men made that still affect America today such as the banking system, election policies, etc. | ||
exceptional gentlemen and the herd Read "Revolutionary Characters" in combination with "Founding Brothers" for an excellent duo, and compare and contrast the two in their approaches and content. This is not a history of the revolution or a detailed analysis of our form of government. Wood has done what he claimed - a look at the character of the subjects, how that influenced their work, and how they were a reflection of, or an exception to, their times. Wood's work combines expansive praise and cold analysis. Each of the founders (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison) is portrayed as a "great man", which of course each deserved, as well as a flawed individual or thinker. The praise and the more negative comments are done with a suitable tone, neither being excessive. For example, Wood describes how Washington was not an intellectual and how that affected his role and strategy, but not in a demeaning way, as Washington obviously contributed greatly in other ways. To me, the freshest perspective was on Madison, as Wood questions Madison's actual contribution to the Constitution, with an end result that bears little similarity to Madison's intent. Wood also tackles the apparent changes in Madison's thinking about the relationship of the government and the people. In fact, elite thought vs. public opinion is one of Wood's recurring themes. Hamilton comes across as the most modern of the founders, which is hardly original, so Wood points out some areas where Hamilton may be overrated in claims regarding his vision. Hamilton obviously outshined the others in his ability to turn vision into governmental reality. Jefferson gets the least positive treatment of the six. Wood recognizes TJ for his brilliance, yet Wood considers Jefferson overrated in American culture, as his vision of the American future was hopelessly impractical and outdated. Aaron Burr takes his lumps in a succinct assessment that will be familiar to readers of Chernow's Hamilton bio. Wood includes Burr as a counter-example to the positive character of the others, with Burr as a schemer void of known intellectual political thought or vision. No detachment for the good of society for Mr. Burr. The unexpected chapter on Thomas Paine was a surprising plus, explaining why Paine is not considered a true "founder". Paine was not the gentleman or the politician that his cohorts were, instead being an early modern intellectual and professional writer according to Wood. The chapter also served as a hint of the analytical final chapter, which emphasized the transition from the brilliant gentleman founders debating among themselves to the rise of the general public as part of the political process. As Wood said in his apt closing sentence, "In the end nothing illustrates better the transforming power of the American Revolution than the way its intellectual and political leaders, that remarkable group of men, contributed to their own demise." 4.5 stars | ||