Rating: 
Summary: truly abysmal
Review: I took mr.Morris's advice and waited to read this book before commenting on it.I can safely say that it is appallingly bad!How dare Edmund Morris insert himself into Reagan's life story?The book should be titled"Edmund& Dutch",since it seems to be mostly about mr.Morris.How come Carl Sandburg never thought to include himself in Abe Lincoln's life story?He could have had a ball writing about double dating with Abe and Ann Rutledge in New Salem!And David Mcculloch should have written about his days as an apprentice in Harry Truman's haberdashery!Who cares if they weren't born yet!Details,details!That doesn't bother Edmund Morris any!Perhaps when Morris spent time with Reagan,he was horrified to discover that there was no "there" there,{as Gertrude Stein said once about Oakland)but then if that's the case,he should never have written the book.
Rating: 
Summary: "DUTCH", Novel or Biography?
Review: After waiting eagerly for the release of the "controversial" DUTCH, I was soon to learn the controversy was much less about President Reagan and more about Mr. Morris' writing style. AAAs usual, the artsy-fartsy crowd at the N.Y. TIMES oozed their praise on what they see as a "magnificent literary work". HEY BIFF, GOT ANY GREY POOP-ON. Sadly, this "literary work" was supposed to be a biography, not a novel (I spent a fair amount of time referring to the bibliography trying to distinguish fact from fiction). While there is no doubt Mr. Morris is a fine and credible author, it seems he forgot the object(and at times, the subject) of his book. Biographies, especially on subjects as difficult to define as Reagan, ARE difficult to write. OK, I'll give you that. But you've got to be kidding me. SPIT IT OUT MAN!!- Drop the fancifull FOO-FOO and get to the meat and po-ta-toes, we're all hungry here!! Biographical authors are historians. Every effort should be made to record the facts without bias and to portray their subject as fairly as possible. When the issue of debate is on the "style" the author chose, rather than the subject of his writings, the mark has clearly been missed. Whether you have an interest in President Reagan's life or not, he governed during a fascinating period in world history. In the end, I fell asleep. What a waste of nine years. Mr.Morris would have been wise if he had followed President Reagans "style"- plain ol' mustard!!
Rating: 
Summary: FASCINATING!!
Review: As a true liberal I thought Morris did a good job at portraying the real Ronald Reagan.I enjoy such factual publications such as STAR and THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER,so I thought that this book delivered the goods that I wanted to hear.I admit I never thought much about Reagan because he always believed in human potential instead of giving people much needed handouts like our current great president but I enjoyed reading about him.
Rating: 
Summary: Alas, poor Ron
Review: Apparently some conservatives expect nothing less than hagiography from anyone who would write about their patron saint. But the fact is that Ronald Reagan was never a very bright man or a good parent. He was what Nancy made of him, and that was not very much at all. This memoir of Reagan is, if anything, too kind. There is reason to believe that Reagan never really understand anything other than a simplistic account of anything. Read the book by George Schulz, who had a horrible time trying to convince Reagan of simple, indisputable facts about foreign policy. "My mind is made up," was appatently the "great communicator's" motto. "Don't try to confuse me with the facts."
Rating: 
Summary: The author makes you like Ronald Reagan, the man.
Review: I voted against Ronald Reagan both times. I never liked the guy. Now I do. The author brought me so close to Reagan, that I had to like and respect him, both as a man and as a leader. Reagan worked all his life, developing his vision. He convinced America to allow him to play the starring role as our president. To those not watching closely, he appeared to do this with little effort.The Ronald Reagan in this book comes off as anything but an airhead, though during his political life he gave that impression to many, including foreign leaders, the author and me. Reagan was focused on his dreams for America. His children and many others found him distant. He was a poor listener and tended to dominate conversations with his repetition of stories. Nonetheless, he was a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. His children are closer to him than to Nancy. He wasn't trying to impress us intellectually nor did Reagan even care about the details. He had vision. The vision may have come from Reader's Digest, movies and children's books. Nonetheless, his dreams were a good representation of the dreams of America. As president, Reagan was very successful at implementing his dreams. Supremely confident, he was successful due to his diligence, lack of ego, willingness to let others handle details and willingness to let others have credit. How can you not like a man like that?
Rating:
Summary: A WHOLE NEW APPRECIATION OF BOOK REVIEWERS--THEY WERE RIGHT!
Review: One thing this book has clarified for me -- book industry reporters and reviewers are not yet taken in by the Hollywood-style hype just beginning to take over their industry. Most of the discussion of this book that took place in the week or two before its publication was, come to find out, right on target. It IS hard to discern who the sbuject is -- the author or Reagan -- as literary critics pointed out. It IS hard to discern between the fake footnotes and the real ones, as historians pointed out. It IS "a belly flop into the pools of Narcisus," as Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan pointed out. Worst of all, from this reader's standpoint it was just boring and awkward. Any scene where the "Morris" character encounters Reagan is just too distractingly fake -- it's like seeing Woody Allen stand next to Hitler in "Zelig." The scene becomes about something else entirely -- either Woody Allen, or the presposterousness of him meeting Hitler, or something; it's not about Hitler. Mr. Morris is not a very skilled fiction writer, but even the best couldn't have pulled this one off. It is highly distressing that Mr. Morris, consumed by the flames of ego, is now lost from the ranks of serious historians and biographers. It is equally distressing that we can no longer trust the standards of Random House -- this book is not only an emabarrassment to them, but points out some serious weaknesses in their editorial vetting process. Certainly, we should all boycott their books for a while until they at least exhibit an awareness of a disservice to their customers. We should have all been aware of this when they embargoed the book from critics. Why would they do that if they weren't trying to hoodwink the public? Otherwise, they'd let the critics talk about the book before it hit the shelves. But the one good thing is that we've all learned the literary press is alert, and apparently motivated by nothing so much as the compulsion to inform the public of the truth. To all those who say the press is overly liberal, it should be pointed out that a liberal press should have loved this book, as Morris clearly didn't like Ronald Reagan. But to all who say the press is overly conservative, it should be noted that the press went against the desires of the power structure in the book business in their reporting on this one -- the book was embargoed, and yet numerous critics released info about it early, before pub dates, to warn people. I imagine those critics themselves will now face embargo from RH, the world's biggest and most powerful publisher. On the whole, Edmund Morris and Random House ought to be ashamed, and avoided in the future. But hats off to the literary reporters who tried to tell us before we could waste our money.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing Morris Work
Review: The trouble with this book is that I expected so much more from a historian of Morris' talents. He had 14 years..writers with half his talent would have come up with something better than this. Morris' interjection of himself into the book is distracting, which is such a shame becasue he didn't have to do that. As I read, I kept asking myself, "Where were the friends and editors of Edmund Morris when he began to pursue this insane tanget?" Why didn't someone wave him off and say, "Hey man, you're trashing your reputation." Morris is a excellent writer and the bulk of this book is good stuff. Unfortunately, the fictionalized parts are so disturbing that I would recommend people save their money and wait until someone else takes a shot at the definitive Reagan biography. No doubt, whoever does write that book will be quoting generously from Morris' work...but only the real parts.
Rating:
Summary: A great piece of fiction - when does the movie come out?
Review: A terribly disappointing book. Although Morris is talented, he falls far short of writing any sort of satisfying biography. The book was more reminiscent of a rather inane soap opera than an objective look at a former President. Also, the fictionalization was quite distracting, and the author's blatant inclusion of himself into the "story" line was just tacky.
Rating:
Summary: At last...a balanced review of Mr. Reagan.
Review: At last, a balanced and insightful revelation on the Reagan Presidency. Most Americans were suspicious of a President that was well past his prime, but were told everything was okay. Now at last the truth revealed that Mr. Reagan was indeed out of touch prior to the end of his second term and possibly the first term. Hurray for Mr. Morris' bravery and commitment to the truth.
Rating:
Summary: Morris delivers an excellent refraction of Reagan's life
Review: While the style is controversial, Morris makes it clear that his goal is to capture the essence of a great, albeit dichotomous character. His treatment is fair and balanced, and will act more as a biographical introduction rather than a historical reference book. His prosaic prose enlightens and entertains, if the reader willingly accepts his fictional devices.
|
