Rating: 
Summary: Half a life. The personal half.
Review: Daniel Ellsberg's profession at RAND in Santa Monica was the creation of mathematical models of conflict situations - wars, face-offs, threats of war, crises - the daily business of the cold war. He is said to have done this work brilliantly. He was expert at game theory. He was unusual, probably unique among defense theorists, in that he stood up from his computer terminal, turned aside from his theoretical models of the war and went to war himself, personally, with a rifle. It comes through that Ellsberg was a bit of an enthusiast -- a war lover. Strangely, the Viet Nam chapters are the only chapters in the book where the character and the story really come alive. But Ellsberg returned from Viet Nam depressed and disgusted. He ultimately copied and released to the press The Pentagon Papers, the classified historical account of US policy in Viet Nam. Very few people actually read the Pentagon Papers. Tom Wicker of the New York Times read into it and was struck and evidently quite shocked by the idea that a war could be discussed as though it were a rational game. He did not know, and most people still don't know, the extent to which US cold war policy, our grand strategy, had been subsumed into John von Neumann's mathematical descriptions of parlour games. Daniel Ellsberg's biography should have had something to say about his profession, about game theory, about the awkward, perhaps ridiculous overlay of a mathematical theory on a shooting war in the jungle. Ellsberg was deeply inside this business, a RAND superstar, and in the end he became disillusioned and quite talkative about it. The author of this biography completely missed this whole astonishing backstory. He simply left out Ellsberg's professional life, his strange and remarkable line of work as a war gamer. What we have here instead is a relentlessly hostile, tut-tut-tutting 604-page description of Ellsberg's personal life: his childhood, his hard pushing mom, his social activities, his water cooler conversations, and his dates and his nights. What are we supposed to do with this kind of information? If you are still wondering why we were in Viet Nam, and who isn't, there exist some much better and livelier books to read: A great introduction to the RAND era and story is "The Wizards of Armageddon," by Kaplan. It was recently re-published in paperback. Prisoner's Dilemma by Poundstone is an excellent book on Von Neumann and the Game Theory. Another book on the subject is, of course, "The Pentagon Papers." Ellsberg's autobiography, which is soon to be published, may also prove helpful. This biography, "Wild Man" does contain, by the way, some interesting historical facts. For example, the author observes that RAND maintained a French colonial villa in Saigon. We are left to wonder what the heck went on in there - that is, what their game was. The author doesn't seem to have a clue that it mattered.
Rating: 
Summary: An anti-hero in anti-heroic times.
Review: Having been interviewed for this book I can testify to the trueness of the part that dealt with the overlap between Dan Ellsberg and myself. Tom Wells gives an absolutely remarkable picture of that time, the time I knew Ellsberg. Presumably Wells's skill at interweaving the stories given by the many people he interviewed are accurate throughout the book. Fascinating book. I couldn't put it down. Interesting to see this picture of the muddle and deceit of our government about that war. I recommend the book to those too young to remember some of Ellsberg's times as well as to those of us who are old enough to remember part of the history of his times. Wells has done a terrific job.
Rating:
Summary: Half a life. The personal half.
Review: Having to practice the piano as a kid seems to me such a great start for the life of an intellectual, that even the beginning of this book made sense to me. I can relate to most of the character features of this book in an intellectual way, also. It is reported on page 573 that "Ellsberg was invited by undergraduates to teach a student-sponsored course on `nuclear weapons and foreign policy'at Stanford in 1979." As a lesson in reality, student interest dwindled rapidly when students discovered "that Ellsberg `relied too much on his memory of what he personally was involved in. . . . It may not have been well organized." More in line with the way everybody is thinking about these things, Harvard Medical School arranged for Ellsberg to teach a course under a center John Mack "had set up called the Center for Psychological Studies in the Nuclear Age." (p. 573). This approaches the field of philosophy in allowing the students to think that they are directly engaging in a study of the thoughts of their professor. I have owned WILD MAN / THE LIFE AND TIMES OF DANIEL ELLSBERG for a year, and appreciated the information about his Harvard years the most. He certainly had more fun at Harvard than I ever had. Photograph number 5, showing "Daniel and Carol Ellsberg holding the purloined ibis at Harvard" shows how readily the students who wrote the "Crimson" could make the news in their paper whatever they wanted it to be, including his line, "It is absurd to maintain that a copper bird could have arranged a series of audiences with notables, or eluded pursuers unaided." (p. 89). Ultimately, news in this country became about what the students at Harvard thought it was. I'm afraid the failure which WILD MAN frequently expresses about the life of Daniel Ellsberg relate to the character of our political system as much as to anything that Daniel Ellsberg might have done. For a few months, I have been reading SAKHAROV / A BIOGRAPHY by Richard Lourie, and I noticed that Daniel Ellsberg was mentioned on page 360 of that book, as someone that Sakharov saw after seven years in which he had seen no one. Sakharov is not mentioned in WILD MAN, not even in the list of people who Tom Wells would give more credit to than Daniel Ellsberg for accomplishing something in the control of nuclear weapons. Politically, it was always felt that Daniel Ellsberg's contributions were "not going to be any kind of dynamite," (p. 351), but Ellsberg himself seemed "nervous and worried. . . . He spoke fast and made jerky movements. He seemed to be a harried man." (p. 351). Sakharov had the advantage of dealing with a political system which could see the need for a change, when he could deal with a leader, Gorbachev, who sincerely needed to find ways to change things for the better. Daniel Ellsberg is already in a system in which change is such a constant that almost anyone in the system could be the anonymous source who told Tom Wells, "I mean, he doesn't even begin to pretend to be interested in me anymore." (p. 604).
Rating:
Summary: I'm overly fond of the subject matter.
Review: Having to practice the piano as a kid seems to me such a great start for the life of an intellectual, that even the beginning of this book made sense to me. I can relate to most of the character features of this book in an intellectual way, also. It is reported on page 573 that "Ellsberg was invited by undergraduates to teach a student-sponsored course on `nuclear weapons and foreign policy'at Stanford in 1979." As a lesson in reality, student interest dwindled rapidly when students discovered "that Ellsberg `relied too much on his memory of what he personally was involved in. . . . It may not have been well organized." More in line with the way everybody is thinking about these things, Harvard Medical School arranged for Ellsberg to teach a course under a center John Mack "had set up called the Center for Psychological Studies in the Nuclear Age." (p. 573). This approaches the field of philosophy in allowing the students to think that they are directly engaging in a study of the thoughts of their professor. I have owned WILD MAN / THE LIFE AND TIMES OF DANIEL ELLSBERG for a year, and appreciated the information about his Harvard years the most. He certainly had more fun at Harvard than I ever had. Photograph number 5, showing "Daniel and Carol Ellsberg holding the purloined ibis at Harvard" shows how readily the students who wrote the "Crimson" could make the news in their paper whatever they wanted it to be, including his line, "It is absurd to maintain that a copper bird could have arranged a series of audiences with notables, or eluded pursuers unaided." (p. 89). Ultimately, news in this country became about what the students at Harvard thought it was. I'm afraid the failure which WILD MAN frequently expresses about the life of Daniel Ellsberg relate to the character of our political system as much as to anything that Daniel Ellsberg might have done. For a few months, I have been reading SAKHAROV / A BIOGRAPHY by Richard Lourie, and I noticed that Daniel Ellsberg was mentioned on page 360 of that book, as someone that Sakharov saw after seven years in which he had seen no one. Sakharov is not mentioned in WILD MAN, not even in the list of people who Tom Wells would give more credit to than Daniel Ellsberg for accomplishing something in the control of nuclear weapons. Politically, it was always felt that Daniel Ellsberg's contributions were "not going to be any kind of dynamite," (p. 351), but Ellsberg himself seemed "nervous and worried. . . . He spoke fast and made jerky movements. He seemed to be a harried man." (p. 351). Sakharov had the advantage of dealing with a political system which could see the need for a change, when he could deal with a leader, Gorbachev, who sincerely needed to find ways to change things for the better. Daniel Ellsberg is already in a system in which change is such a constant that almost anyone in the system could be the anonymous source who told Tom Wells, "I mean, he doesn't even begin to pretend to be interested in me anymore." (p. 604).
Rating:
Summary: A compelling Microcosm of the Sixties
Review: I couldn't stop reading this book. The life of Ellsburg parallels what so many of us went through in the sixties that with every page I found myself transported back to the time of napalm, Nixon and night burglars. Overall, I found the portrait of this seminal sixties figure to be meticulously researched and balanced. Wells does not demonize Ellsburg like critics from the right havedone, nor does he sanitize his life as the popular media has done over theyears. What you get here is a behind the scenes look at Washington with as much inside dope as the best Woodward books. Don't believe the Ellsburg-orchestrated attacks on this book. It is a must read!
Rating: 
Summary: Shocked and Horrified
Review: I happen to be an admirer of Daniel Ellsberg and I bought this book expecting it to be a gripping read about my hero, boy was I wrong. The unsuspecting reader thinks that Wells uses clear, factual information, but I happen to know that most of his "facts" simply aren't true. Many interviews were given by people who hardly knew Ellsberg. This book is completely negative and I'm not satisfied with any of Wells's petty conclusions. Do not buy this UNAUTHORIZED biography.
Rating:
Summary: Must all the great men be free from flaws?
Review: I was fascinated by this book. Like the other reader below, I revere what Ellsberg did; however, it seems like he wasn't the most perfect human being who ever lived. Who is? Big deal. This is an incredibly well-researched book that presents an unvarnished view of one of the greatest Americans of the twentieth century and (guess what?) the unsparing view presented here makes him seem like a real person and not some marble statue. If you don't want to look at history through rose-colored glasses, read this book.
Rating:
Summary: A balanced and interesting portrayal
Review: In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg did a very brave and daring thing. The release of the Pentagon Papers was seen by others in my generation as one of the greatest acts of heroism imaginable. It is not surprising that Ellsberg -- the man -- is not the shining star that I thought he was in the summer of '71. Wells' book presents the man in amazing detail and we see him for the complex and perplexing person he is. Wells has done a great deal of research to write this book and it explodes off the page. Some may say that Ellsberg is a man for whom a biography is not deserved, but reading even the first chapter makes you realize just how central he is to the last 30 years of American history. After that, the book reads like a good novel.
Rating:
Summary: Liked the book, liked the Ellsberg
Review: It is long, but it struck me as effectively structured and altogether clear, with brief repetitions that helped pull together the data and interpretations, the drama and the conflicts. Yes, the author pulls no punches in critically putting Ellsberg into a larger context beyond the releasing of those Papers, but I judge this to be relevant to a rounded, analytical, and probing biography. The idea that the Papers' release had an indirect impact on bringing down Nixon was new and plausible to me. Wells avoids the more extreme debunking of Ellsberg (such as those who hold that his act caused millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese to be killed). My reading is that Wells has also been courageous, ambitious, super-patient, and fair, appreciating Ellsberg's soaring great acts and texts as well as grasping his humanity -- virtues, faults, elegancies, suavities, passions, and all. It did not strike me as a hatchet job, but as insightful and often sympathetic to the one who dared -- and the sheer guts of Ellsberg in his historic defiance of the establishment awes me still. Sure, it's always tricky to impute motives to others (and maybe there is a very lot more yet to Dr. Wild Man), but I can relate to Wells's claim that he has captured much of a complex, significant, and anguished character. Finally, I see some of Ellsberg now in certain bright but difficult people I work with, and in that way too Wells has increased my general understandings of them, me, and my times.
Rating:
Summary: Revealing portrayal of complicated public figure & his times
Review: Rarely have I read a biography that gave me so much insight into the life and personality of a major public figure. Wells is to be commended for a searching portrait of an amazingly complex personality. He clearly did his homework, conducting numerous interviews of Ellsberg himself and many of the living sources on him, including his family, friends, and colleagues. No one can leave this book without a better appreciation of the complex influences that caused Ellsberg to release the Pentagon Papers; this was clearly an act of personal courage, but perhaps also motivated by some element of self-aggrandizement. (Then again, unless one takes an extremely simplistic view of history, whose motives are ever pure and unadulterated?) Wells would have us wonder if Ellsberg's career had continued on its upwards trajectory as a "supergenius" and insider at RAND, he would ever have released the Papers; I believe that diminishes Ellsberg's anti-war motivation far too much, however. And the book does seem, if anything, rather personally biased against Ellsberg, whom the author seems to delight in describing at great length in not terribly attractive terms. Indeed, whenever Wells faces any ambiguity about his subject, he seems to consciously choose not to give Ellsberg the benefit of the doubt. Wells also does a great deal of overtly interjecting his own biases and parenthetical observations into the narrative, which is more than a little disconcerting. Finally, the choice of the title seems both unfortunate and somewhat sensationalistic. But this is probably the fullest picture we will ever have of this man. Perhaps most useful of all is the book's detailed narrative of the copying and release of the Pentagon Papers and the Nixon Administration's almost comic attempt--comic if it weren't so frightening--to stop Ellsberg and his comrades at any cost. The ultimate irony, one can infer from Wells, is that while Ellsberg's release of the Papers had far less impact on ending the Vietnam War than he had hoped, the Nixon Administration's attempt to wreak vengeance on him and stop his antiwar activities probably led to Nixon's demise in the Watergate mess.
|
