|
With unique anecdotes and astute observations, we learn that the McKinley assassination spot is memorialized by a decaying stone plaque.Garfield's is now the National Archives building (it was the Baltimore/Potomac railroad station) and we follow various paths of the Lincoln conspirators with possibly the most lurid being the prison site of Dr. The beauty of reading history is that the diversity of opinion and interpretation of facts are such a subjective enterprise that one can read many tomes on a single subject (such as Abraham Lincoln for example) and still get a wide range of understanding and literary experiences. Samuel Mudd (in the Dry Tortugas west of Key West). We can assuredly add Sarah Vowell to the list of "diverse" authors of history as she pens a unique view on the assassinations of presidents Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. More like hanging out than lecturing, Vowell takes us on an untraditional journey into these nation altering events and along the way provides a smart and sassy view of presidential history.Purported to be a study of the first three presidential assassinations, Vowell instead allows us to tag along on road trip after road trip as she pursues dark and anachronistic memorabilia pertaining to these tragedies. Her passion, curiosity and literary skills are only exceeded by the nerdy, sometimes melancholy, always affecting attitude. The reader (this reader anyway) at the end suddenly concludes that this peculiar approach serves the historian well.all the while being delightfully entertaining.A work that would captivate my seventeen year old daughter as well as the (semi) serious historian, Sarah Vowell conclusively combines history with sentiment and proves that, yes, history can be fun.
She jumps from one thing to another, sandwiched in between talking about all the fun she has, all the while telling us what an anti-social introvert she is.after about half a chapter, I'd had enough. I love listening to Sarah Vowell on NPR so thought I'd check out her books. Even not knowing any history, I can pretty much predict what she is going to say and how she is going to say it since the same cuteness creeps into everything. Listening to her stories in 15 minute excerpts is much different from an entire book though, even trying a chapter at a time. I thought I would learn some history in a fun way, but instead am subjected to Sarah's precocious name dropping of her favorite bands (none of which I've heard of), art gallery openings, plays, people she knows ad naseum with schizophrenic history facts scattered about in such a flurry that I have no idea what she is talking about. I have to hand it to her, doing all the research and being interested in all these things, and keeping it in her mind enough to write a book about it, but the interesting stories that sound good on NPR read like a jumble of disconnected facts on the page. Maybe if she employs a new editor.
I see now that I was wrong.After reading Assassination Vacation, it's clear that Vowell's politics and past are the reasons for which both The Wordy Shipmates and Assassination Vacation were written. Fine, no problem. Once you've read these two books, you'll know the following about Sarah Vowell, since the reader is relentlessly beaten over the head with these points. She has all of the skills necessary to be a great popularizer of American history. Garfield, William McKinley, John Winthrop or John Cotton; these are merely opportunities for Vowell to turn the conversation back on herself. I'm reminded of the kids who used ask how your Christmas was, just so they could tell you about all the cool stuff they got. When I read The Wordy Shipmates by Vowell, I thought that detours into Sarah Vowell's past and politics were simply irritating intrusions into an otherwise interesting narrative history. She's witty and easy to read, and clearly loves history and telling others about it.
She badly needs a less pliable editor who can tighten up her work.I may read more from Sarah Vowell in the future, but it'll have to be post-Bush. But the literary bait and switch technique is unfair to the reader.What's extremely irritating about Vowell is that she really is a gifted writer. Otherwise, it'll just be another trip though Sarah Vowell's therapist's office. Bush specifically.* is from Oklahoma and had ancestors on the Trail of Tears.* is an atheist.* likes creepy stuff.* doesn't like being outside.* likes big cities.* suffers from multiple neuroses, especially a fear of driving.* used to work at a college radio station.The last point is so clumsily worked into the narrative of both books that, every time Vowell went off on one of her "look at me" detours, I could almost hear Toad the Wet Sprocket playing in the background. These books are not about Abraham Lincoln, James A. And that's what's so maddening.
She:* hates Republicans generally and George W. Want to tell the world all this stuff about you in writing. When she can stay on topic, she's fantastic; the best part of Assassination Vacation is the Garfield section, which was both enlightening and amusing. I want to like her stuff so much, but the books are going to have to be about something other than herself.
Not only is this book good history but the author makes us stop and look at how history repeats itself. It makes me wonder if more people read history would we stop making the same mistakes. I am pretty familiar with the Lincoln bits bit Garfield and McKinley were new to me for study. I will look for more of her books.
Her sense of irony is impeccable. Well, now, it seems we have some rather distinct differences about Sarah Vowell's writing style. It is clear from her anecdotal descriptions of various events in her past that she has a passion for history and historic detail.I also think that some of her interpretations of historical events may get her into hot, but not scalding water. She does tend to bring the realities of events into a clearer focus by delving into the failures and even the dark sides of individuals who we know mostly through 2-dimensional mythologies. While I do find these comments to mar her fundamentally sound approach to history, I am not so myopic as to let it avert my interest from a truly interesting and penetrating view of historical events. After all, this is the stuff of historians, who argue over interpretations of detail all the time.
The few criticisms she attracts seem to dwell upon this aspect of her writing. Though I have not read all of the reviews, those that I have read do not criticize the veracity of her factual statements. It seems to me that it is primarily her lively descriptions of these realities that captures the approval of the majority of those who have commented.Alas, Sarah is also incapable of leaving her political views out of the scenarios. Most of these debates are never resolved, and it is understanding the differing viewpoints that reveals the history for what it really is--real life. In this sense, I find Vowell's descriptions of events to be incredibly refreshing. If you find this too distracting, especially if you have conservative leanings, then I fear you will be unable to look past it.
I think that the vast majority of readers will find they have the same (forgiving) reaction.
|
