dlsmall's review against another edition
3.0
The art is solid, the point of view is very clear, but the consistent mustache-twirling or fervent mania of the assorted New Dealers is laid on a little bit thick. I'll give you some misguided, and I'll give you some deceptive, and I'll give you SOME villainy, but c'mon.
I love my Ayn Rand as much as the next guy or gal who loves Ayn Rand, but when I'm reading The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, I know I'm reading fictional political commentary, not historical analysis.
I love my Ayn Rand as much as the next guy or gal who loves Ayn Rand, but when I'm reading The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, I know I'm reading fictional political commentary, not historical analysis.
sizrobe's review against another edition
4.0
A graphic history of the Great Depression adapted from a book that's apparently somewhat famous for its conservative slant. Interesting to hear that side argued, but still somewhat dry.
kahale's review against another edition
3.0
Am economic history of the end of the Hoover Administration and the Roosevelt up to WWII. It follows the economic and political efforts of these administrations to fix the Depression.
el1zabe4h's review against another edition
4.0
Great idea! History in a graphic novel. Love anything that will engage non-readers (yikes~are there many out there?). This is great for all ages!
heyhawk's review against another edition
3.0
I wanted to get the conservative take on the New Deal, having read HW Brand's FDR biography. This book did that admirably. While I may disagree with some of her conclusions, the book is mostly narrative and is enjoyable and informative. The only problem is that now Audible.com thinks I should read some Ann Coulter!
missjazzage's review against another edition
DNF, stopped 30 pages in.
Seemed a bit off when a panel of Ayn Rand arriving in NYC was depicted much like a young woman arrived in Hollywood with the dream to conquer the movies (and does).
Should have been wary of the “new history” bit in the title, but lesson learned.
Aside from that, I had trouble following along with the narrative. Seems that it’s too complex to be formatted as a graphic novel.
Seemed a bit off when a panel of Ayn Rand arriving in NYC was depicted much like a young woman arrived in Hollywood with the dream to conquer the movies (and does).
Should have been wary of the “new history” bit in the title, but lesson learned.
Aside from that, I had trouble following along with the narrative. Seems that it’s too complex to be formatted as a graphic novel.
zelanator's review against another edition
4.0
Took a while to finish this one. Overall well written, but a fairly narrow look at the Great Depression post-1936.
cdcsmith's review against another edition
2.0
If I had to pick a favorite president, it would be FDR. Nothing in this book changed that. I know he wasn't perfect and there is an awful lot I disagree with (though hindsight is 20/20).
This book would entirely disagree with my opinion. There wasn't a lot of new information about this time in history. It just takes it at a different angle - a decidedly conservative one. People much smarter than I am can argue the details for or against, but this one didn't work for me. I felt a lot like I was in a lecture course and not allowed to ask questions or argue points with the professor.
This book would entirely disagree with my opinion. There wasn't a lot of new information about this time in history. It just takes it at a different angle - a decidedly conservative one. People much smarter than I am can argue the details for or against, but this one didn't work for me. I felt a lot like I was in a lecture course and not allowed to ask questions or argue points with the professor.
davidbythebay's review
1.0
So I read the Introduction and was intrigued at the idea of this book. I was not sold on the argument, but that’s what the book is supposed to do - sell me on the argument and convince me of the author’s positions’ veracity. At least the general thesis that is laid out seemed plausible and possibly a new interpretation of the New Deal Era.
I read the first three chapters and despised the writing style so much. I have read nonfiction books involving history and economics before but this was nothing like any I read before. I am all fine with having a more narrative approach with heroes and villains of history, but not a string of hero worshiping. That is too much for me. Especially when it’s about how this man was a hero and that woman was too with no real reason for why they are a hero of history. It is more of a parade of pomp than circumstance. There is little substance here besides tidbits.
It was on page 43 that I discovered truly what this author’s angle is. The author discusses how the Gilded Age led even the poor man to find prosperity through their individual efforts, and how immigrants had as their symbol of independence the Bank of United States. Then the author writes “Coolidge of the party of Lincoln was not content with this [high Black unemployment in the 1930 census].” And then how Coolidge wanted to end the lynchings in the South “but [he] was not clear whether Congress had the authority to reach over the states....”
To review: we have prosperity through your own means, the almighty dollar and bank, the Party of Lincoln, and States’ Rights. These are classic conservative talking points. Now I have read and enjoyed the reading of conservative philosophy - I don’t usually agree with it but I do enjoy the exercise of reading and countering the arguments. But this book before this and in light of it really reads more of a propaganda piece to expose the horrors of liberalism. She even seems to equate Soviet Russia with FDR and liberalism.
So I read the first three chapters in full, then skimmed the rest of the book for the main points. And it was as it appeared. There was little substance to the argument. What’s worse is the writing was poor. The chapters bounced around from topic to topic and back again in a hodgepodge of paragraphs. A finer edit was definitely necessary to get rid of fluff and get to the bones of the argument. The argument is bare. As such, it falls apart.
I was so hoping for an interesting look at the New Deal through new eyes and a different perspective. Instead I got a rehash of tired conservative talking points without proof or substance.
I read the first three chapters and despised the writing style so much. I have read nonfiction books involving history and economics before but this was nothing like any I read before. I am all fine with having a more narrative approach with heroes and villains of history, but not a string of hero worshiping. That is too much for me. Especially when it’s about how this man was a hero and that woman was too with no real reason for why they are a hero of history. It is more of a parade of pomp than circumstance. There is little substance here besides tidbits.
It was on page 43 that I discovered truly what this author’s angle is. The author discusses how the Gilded Age led even the poor man to find prosperity through their individual efforts, and how immigrants had as their symbol of independence the Bank of United States. Then the author writes “Coolidge of the party of Lincoln was not content with this [high Black unemployment in the 1930 census].” And then how Coolidge wanted to end the lynchings in the South “but [he] was not clear whether Congress had the authority to reach over the states....”
To review: we have prosperity through your own means, the almighty dollar and bank, the Party of Lincoln, and States’ Rights. These are classic conservative talking points. Now I have read and enjoyed the reading of conservative philosophy - I don’t usually agree with it but I do enjoy the exercise of reading and countering the arguments. But this book before this and in light of it really reads more of a propaganda piece to expose the horrors of liberalism. She even seems to equate Soviet Russia with FDR and liberalism.
So I read the first three chapters in full, then skimmed the rest of the book for the main points. And it was as it appeared. There was little substance to the argument. What’s worse is the writing was poor. The chapters bounced around from topic to topic and back again in a hodgepodge of paragraphs. A finer edit was definitely necessary to get rid of fluff and get to the bones of the argument. The argument is bare. As such, it falls apart.
I was so hoping for an interesting look at the New Deal through new eyes and a different perspective. Instead I got a rehash of tired conservative talking points without proof or substance.
iceangel9's review
5.0
A long over due look at what caused the Great Depression and why it lasted so long. Shlaes is fair to all sides and doesn't paint either side of the asile as all good or all bad. A must read for history lovers and those who want to understand how we got where we are today.