Skip to main content

A Tale of Sound and Fury


Since the week before it was to be published, Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House has been, by far, the most-talked about book in the country. The furor, prompted by an angry denunciation-by-tweet from the President, a cease and desist letter from his lawyers, and salacious details from the book making their way into the press, immediately catapulted it to bestseller status. Being a political junkie, of course I couldn't resist giving it a read. While the book sold out almost immediately in print, I was lucky enough to borrow the digital audiobook from my local public library. I rushed through it in just a few days - not only because of how engrossing it was, but also knowing that there were a lot of people waiting to read it after I was done.

As enjoyable a read as Fire and Fury was, the deep irony of the book is that it would likely have received little attention had it not been for the attacks by the Trump Administration. In attempting to stop the book, they instead gave Wolff the best gift an author could hope for - masses of free publicity. The reality of the book is that there isn't a lot that's new here, at least in the big picture. Wolff portrays the President as a man deeply set in his ways, uninterested in the basic functions of his job, and quite out of his depth. He didn't even want to win, as far as that went. The campaign was meant to bolster his own personal brand and, if Wolff is to be believed, position him to launch a television network that would compete with Fox News. This is, essentially, a narrative that you didn't have to read this book to be familiar with. 

Some of the particular anecdotes of the work make for interesting reading, but details of what Wolff relates have come under fire as possibly inaccurate. There is also a definite shift partway into the book. While the story begins broadly told, gradually we're left mostly with Steve Bannon's point of view. The reader might not be wrong to suspect that towards the end of his research, the former chief strategist for the President was almost the only source still talking. This makes the last part of the work less interesting as a result - less about Trump than it is about Bannon. Wolff seemingly gives him too much credit as a political operator, and Bannon's apparent inability to stop himself from talking led shortly to his ouster from Breitbart. Bannon's rapid fall after the book's publication marks a curious coda to a curious career.

If you can get your hands on a copy, you'll likely find it was worth your time. But if not, Fire and Fury is surely just the first of many inside looks at a chaotic time in the Executive Branch. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...