Reviews for A Healing

The average rating for A Healing based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-09-25 00:00:00 Daniel Fick "[George] Washington had dominated American political life for so long that many Americans could not conceive of life without him. A widespread fear arose that, deprived of his guiding hand, the Republic itself might founder…Perhaps as an antidote to such apprehension, Washington was smothered beneath national piety, and it became difficult for biographers to reclaim the complex human being. The man immediately began to merge with the myth. As the subject of more than four hundred printed orations [after his death], Washington was converted into an exemplar of moral values, the person chosen to tutor posterity in patriotism, even a civic deity…Washington's transformation into a sacred figure erased his tough, often moody nature, stressing only his serene composure and making it more difficult for future generations to fathom his achievements. Abigail Adams justly rebelled at the idealized portrait: 'Simple truth is his best, his greatest euology…'" - Ron Chernow: Washington: A Life I think it has something to do with his portraits. George Washington is our most important president (for good or bad he shaped the office into what it is today), he is our most distant president, and he is our most inscrutable president (of the presidents we care about, of course; Benjamin Harrison is also a tad inscrutable, as if anyone cares). To many of his contemporaries, Washington was a demigod. As the leader of the Continental Army, he'd done the impossible in fighting off the British Empire, then the most powerful military force on earth. Later, when people were lining up to give him absolute power, he refused, and eventually, walked away. Throughout the course of his life, he also carefully tended his image, suppressing his fierce temper in an attempt to remain outwardly poised and distant. After he had died, the mythologizing continued, with the likes of Parson Mason Locke Weems spinning tall tales about Washington out of whole cloth. The federal city was named after him, as well as a state. There are hundreds of counties and towns and high schools and streets and avenues and boulevards and traffic circles that also bear his name, further abstracting the man and adding to his myth. There is also the issue of his portraits. George Washington lived and died before photographs. Thus, the image we have of him comes from highly-subjective, often exaggerated, sometimes striking (a lazy eye! really?) physical descriptions. It also comes from the portraits. The problem with these portraits, though, is that they aren't recognizably human. There is something lifeless, caricatured, and two-dimensional about them, even the best ones. In some full-body portraits, Washington looks like Gumby; in paintings of just his face, he looks waxen. Compare this to Abraham Lincoln, the president with whom Washington is inextricably tied by birth month and historical achievement. Lincoln stares out at us from dozens of photographic plates. We can see all the wrinkles. We can see the hollowed cheeks, and watch as they get ever more hollow through the years of the Civil War. We can see the haunted eyes. Lincoln's photographs, combined with his bouts of melancholy and self-doubt, make him excruciatingly human. Washington, though, remains aloof from humanity, like one of the gods on Olympus. Accordingly, any author who tackles Washington has - as his or her first priority - the task of making this figure of marble and stone into a man of flesh and blood and really, really bad teeth. Ron Chernow's Washington: A Life does this as well as any one-volume biography possibly can. (And pays due attention to Washington's dentures). Chernow doesn't succeed by reinventing our notions of George Washington. There is nothing new here to radically alter what we know about Washington's historical person. There is no striking reevaluation of his generalship or his presidency; Chernow posits no National Treasure-like theories with regards to Washington's masonry, or whether or not Washington left clues to a buried chest of gold ingots in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, Chernow has used his access to the most up-to-date compilations of Washington's papers to give us an illuminating look at this man, often in his own words (as Chernow notes in his acknowledgments, the collection of Washington's papers allows us, 200 years later, far more insight into Washington's life than his closest companions had at the time Washington was alive). The Washington that is revealed through his diaries and letters and reports is as complex as you'd expect: at times humble, at time vainglorious; at times charitable, at times petty. Washington is revealed as a dynamic figure, with differing, sometimes contradictory impulses, rife with contradictions and hypocrisies. To Chernow's credit, he does not attempt to explain away these contradictions or smooth over Washington's rough edges; neither does he try to project upon Washington a falsely redemptive arc. He gives us Washington the human, a man who didn't always make sense, who was always changing, but not always for the better, and a man whose foibles are as recognizable as his accomplishments are astounding. (For instance, Chernow paints an indelible portrait of a young Colonel Washington, holed up in a half-assed garrison named Fort Necessity, surrounded by Indians and Frenchmen, but based on the letters to his superiors, mainly worried about his next promotion and pay raise). Reading Chernow (who also wrote an excellent biography on Alexander Hamilton that - you may have heard - was turned into a musical of modest success) is the best of both worlds. His research, including primary source work, is extensive enough to satisfy those with an academic bent. At the same time, his writing style is open and accessible to any reader. Chernow even displays occasional flashes of wit. For instance, he quotes one of Washington's diary entries in which Washington admitted to chopping down two cherry trees. (No joke! Maybe Parson Weems was onto something after all…) The problems in Washington, slight as they are, stem mainly from the fact that this is a one-volume biography. Salman Rushdie once wrote, "To understand one life, you must swallow the world." Obviously, one book, no matter how thick, isn't going to do the trick. In Washington, this means there is a lot of glossing over certain aspects of Washington's life. His family history, early childhood, and exploits during the French & Indian War are all dispensed with in less than 100 pages. It was the French & Indian War passages that were the most disappointing. Chernow's rush to keep things moving turns Washington's service into a career footnote. Washington's ambush of the French diplomat Jumonville made him a chief instigator in starting a world war, while his actions at Fort Necessity and during the Braddock Massacre give us glimpses of the man - flawed yet great - that Washington would become. It is a shame more time couldn't have been spent during this part of his life. But that's less a criticism than a reality of the confines of a one-volume work. There aren't many multivolume biographers working any more (Robert Caro being one of the few). Gone are the days of Douglas Southall Freeman and William Manchester. With that faded art, though, you lose a lot of context. The wider world in which Washington lived and moved remains mostly in shadows. You will get no larger understanding of the French & Indian War or even the American Revolution. There is not even space for a single map of, say, the Battle of Princeton, one of Washington's few battlefield victories. As a result, Washington's actions often seem to take place within a vacuum. Furthermore, few secondary characters get fleshed out (the exception being Martha Washington). This creates a sort of rear-projection effect, like you see in old movies. Washington emerges as a three-dimensional character; however, everything around him is flat and two-dimensional. This is not to say that Chernow doesn't try to cover everything. He does. The consequence, however, is that this book is both too long and too short. Its density is amazing, and a bit like taking too big a bite of a great steak. It tastes good, but you have to be careful not to choke. (Aside: an interesting thing I've noticed about one-volume biographies is that the author often fixates on a particular character quirk, and keeps returning to that quirk throughout the book. For Chernow, that quirk is Washington's buying habits. Despite eliding portions of Washington's military and political career, Chernow never misses an opportunity to quote portions of Washington's bills-of-sale, showing his affinity for English clothes and furniture). One tactic Chernow uses to deal with space limitations is a partially-thematic approach. While most of the events of Washington's life are dealt with chronologically, Chernow devotes certain chapters to a single subject. Within these chapters, the timeline skips around. The most effective of these chapters deal with slavery (and are among the best chapters in the book). Washington's views and actions with regards to slavery are fully covered. Chernow reveals a Washington who was a relatively kindly slave-owner, not given to excessive cruelty, who allowed his slaves a great deal of autonomy. At the same time, Chernow never lets you forget that kind or not, Washington owned people, and he shows time and again how ignorant Washington was of this fact (he and Martha were always surprised when slaves, rather than being grateful for their masters' benevolence, ran away). Also explored is Washington's private support for conditional termination of slavery, which butted against his public refusal to take that stand. (To his credit, Washington alone among the Founders manumitted his slaves upon his death). The thematic approach is also used for Washington's presidency, with chapters devoted to Washington's domestic troubles, including his suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, as well as foreign policy issues, mainly, the troubling turn of the French Revolution from an anti-monarchial movement to an orgiastic frenzy of beheadings. Washington's greatest contribution as president, of course, was setting a precedent for how the executive office should be handled. Here, Washington quelled the ambitions of his youth, and proceeded cautiously, unbelievably cognizant of the fact that everyone following after him would, in some measure, trace his footsteps. Though Washington never received formal education, Chernow shows him to be a political genius, and never more so than in his forward-looking belief in the potential greatness of America. Unlike Jefferson, he wasn't going to settle for a loosely connected network of utopian farmers. He believed in a strong central government; though the Federalist party quickly died away, it is their vision that eventually survived (to be sure, a great measure of Federalist success can be traced back to John Marshall, who managed to rule the Supreme Court long after the Federalist Party went kaput). The end of this biography, like the end of all good biographies, carries a certain amount of sadness. By the time Washington left office, he was being besieged by political enemies who were willing to accuse him of all manner of outrageous slander. Then, after only two years of retirement, Washington was stricken by an illness and died at Mount Vernon. In Chernow's telling, Washington's death may have been just one more example of the quackery and butchery of 18th and 19th century physicians condemning a man who might otherwise have survived. They not only bled Washington profusely, removing up to five pints (!) of blood, but they also gave the poor bastard an enema. Today, George Washington is so woven into our historical fabric that it's hard to believe he once walked the earth. A book like this, with descriptions of very human foibles, sartorial concerns, rotting teeth and enemas, reminds you that Washington was a man. But that's what makes the story great. It is a small thing for a god to accomplish these tasks. Far harder is it to believe that a relatively smalltime Virginia planter with a bit of ambition, a bit of grit, and an incredible strength of spirit, managed to shepherd a bloody revolution and hold together an infant nation. Ultimately, Washington was a great man. Not great in the glib, modern sense. Not great in the way we might describe our buddies: George is a great guy and a really chill hang! No, he was great in the sense that he towered over his age, and bent history like it was a blade of grass. He was not without his flaws - his participation in the enslavement of his fellow man being one of several - but he helped create something lasting. In point of fact, he helped to create a nation in which his legacy could be furiously and passionately debated for all time.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-08-15 00:00:00 Don Ross I generally don't like biographies, but, knowing little of Washington save for his French and Indian War and Revolutionary War exploits, and not having heard anything bad about Chernow's biography, I figured I might as well learn something. Why should you read this book when you think that you know all you need to about George Washington? I think that you should because this book is wonderful, both in the writing and in the level of detail. Chernow is a wonderful writer. As with his other biographies, Chernow gives us a picture that goes beyond a stiff formal portrait. He gives us, what I consider to be, a fair picture of Washington, with his faults clearly delineated as well as his positive attributes. Here is not the Washington promoted to a saint-like status, rather a man who made the most of all the opportunities that came his way. A man who was not above ordering gold braid and a red sash for his uniform, and a man who took offense at slights (although when necessary held his anger to himself) and a man who bristled when he was appointed to a military rank that he felt was too low. However, he was also a man who learned by his mistakes (and Chermow points out a lot of them) and was above all; courageous, conscientious, honest, and hard working. He shows Washington the man - a man who felt handicapped by his lack of a college education, a man with a volatile temperament that he kept tightly under control, a man who could lead men but found himself leading untrained and undisciplined ones. He shows Washington to be human, a man who "... adopted a blistering style whenever he thought someone had cheated him". Most of all he shows a Washington who prevented the dissolution of the army during the war and whose actions defined the presidency of the US. One of Chernow's objectives was to show that Washington made his own decisions, after consultation with those whose opinions he respected, and contrary to the charge made by his enemies was not controlled by men like Hamilton. What I found most interesting were the discussions of those aspects of Washington's life that are generally not covered in one-volume biographies. He discusses the economic factors that eventually turned Washington against Britain. Chernow discusses Washington the businessman (both as a planter and a land speculator) and his dealings with his London agents. Contrary to popular myth, Chernow shows Washington to be land rich but cash poor, frequently to the extent of being on the brink of economic disaster. Chernow devotes two chapters (and parts of others) to the issue of slavery. He makes it clear that Washington did not like the institution, but he viewed his slaves as an investment that he did not know how to dispense with without bring about his economic ruin. Furthermore, he unrealistically expected his slaves to act more like employees or soldiers and could not understand why some did not, or why some ran away. Remarkably, Chernow makes Washington come alive without sacrificing details. My touchstone for a biography on Washington is the extent to which it covers his family, particularly his brothers. Flexner's one volume condensation of his four-volume biography of Washington mentions George's older half-brothers, but not his older half-sister or his younger full brothers and sisters. Chernow mentions them all. He also clears up the story of how George acquired Mt. Vernon, and how it got its name. Chernow also discusses Washington's difficult relationship with his mother, a subject generally not covered in other one-volume biographies. The book also discusses such diverse topics as Washington's teeth, his height, and many of his illnesses. As another main theme, Chernow tries to debunk the image of Washington as a cold, unfeeling, stoic, marble-like statue, simply doing right by his country. Washington's ambition shines through the pages, especially early in his life. Moreover, Chernow posits that Washington was a man of powerful emotion, often bubbling barely beneath the surface, and overflowing much more frequently that history generally notes. Those emotions ranged from seething anger to tender care for his extended and adopted family, and his army. Chernow does not ascribe Washington's greatness to these twin personas - stoic and yet temperamental - but he does suggest the tension was a driving force in Washington's life. His revelation of the emotional dimensions of Washington's life gave me a new understanding of Washington, and a new appreciation of his complexities. For example, Washington was not a military genius. Washington's missteps revealed failings as a strategist. No one understood his limitations better than Washington himself who, on the eve of the New York campaign in 1776, confessed to Congress his "want of experience to move on a large scale" and his "limited and contracted knowledge . . . in Military Matters." Rather, the "secret" to Washington's excellence lay in his completeness, in how he united the military, political, and personal skills necessary to lead a nation in war and peace. Despite being an "imperfect commander"(and at times even a tactically suspect one)Washington nevertheless possessed the requisite combination of vision, integrity, talents, and good fortune to lead America to victory in its war for independence. This is a complete biography of George Washington. It is divided into six parts, covering his entire life. In contrast, some biographies only cover part of his life. For instance, Willard Sterne Randall's biography of Washington focuses almost entirely on the revolutionary war. Chernow covers everything, devoting almost equal space to Washington's presidency as to his leadership of the army. The book contains 30 black and white photographs of paintings of individuals, printed on high gloss paper. The quality of the photographs is good, but lacks the color of the originals, which is unfortunate. I think that there are two caveats that a potential reader should be aware of. This is not a detailed military history - there are no maps or detailed discussions of tactics. It is more about the man and how he handled the problems of the war, than a history of the war itself. Neither is this book a political treatise on the Washington presidency. Chernow does, however, show how Washington, by his actions, created the presidency. For instance,Chernow shows how Washington changed the Senate's constitutional requirement of "advise and consent" to consent for actions he took. One should not take these caveats as an indication that the book was not excellent or is incomplete. It is just that there is a limit to what one can put into a single volume, even with more than 800 pages of text. Furthermore, this is a book about Washington's whole life, written for a general audience. In this it succeeds admirably.