Scan barcode
txwitch80's review
1.0
The author was a professor of mine at the University of Georgia and I'd wanted to read this book since then. I should have ignored that feeling. I do not understand why it won the Pulitzer Price. It was so boring! I struggled to finish and did not enjoy any of it. It read like a dissertation, and I found myself repeatedly checking how many pages I had left to suffer through.
mcreed06's review
4.0
Fabulous book; I finished Summer for the Gods with a plan to travel to Dayton, Tennessee for the 100th Anniversary of the Scopes Trial. Surely, the city will recognize this significant event with a reenactment. Now, that, I want to see. July 2025 is five years away, but the Lord Willing and the Creek don't rise, I will be there.
When I stated my goal to read every book of 3B Book Club, Melissa turned to me and said, "There are some that I thought I should warn you about.." I responded that I was slowly but surely reading my way through Personal History, a 600-plus-page, tediously-written autobiography written in the tiniest font. Melissa said, "That was one of them."
Summer of the Gods was likely another one that she would have flagged. It was written by a Scholar for dedicated readers of History and Law. As with Personal History, I am so glad I read it. Knowledge of this piece of U.S. History, especially the origins of the ACLU, is uplifting.
It is quintessential America that two men of opposing ideologies, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, could cordially greet each other in a court of law to challenge the other’s worldview. Yes, one was likely an arrogant jerk, and the other an insufferable Bible Thumper but both were well-meaning men who stood up for their principles with courage. Each in his own unique way steered the course of U.S. History.
When I stated my goal to read every book of 3B Book Club, Melissa turned to me and said, "There are some that I thought I should warn you about.." I responded that I was slowly but surely reading my way through Personal History, a 600-plus-page, tediously-written autobiography written in the tiniest font. Melissa said, "That was one of them."
Summer of the Gods was likely another one that she would have flagged. It was written by a Scholar for dedicated readers of History and Law. As with Personal History, I am so glad I read it. Knowledge of this piece of U.S. History, especially the origins of the ACLU, is uplifting.
It is quintessential America that two men of opposing ideologies, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, could cordially greet each other in a court of law to challenge the other’s worldview. Yes, one was likely an arrogant jerk, and the other an insufferable Bible Thumper but both were well-meaning men who stood up for their principles with courage. Each in his own unique way steered the course of U.S. History.
christianbennett's review
5.0
Incredible book - one of the most compelling non-fiction accounts I've read. Very deserved of the Pulitzer Prize it won, for it is clear that Larson invested a countless number of hours to write this book, with astounding levels of detail on every page. In addition to that, it also abounds in emotion - you really feel personal connections to Bryan, Darrow, and their teams.
The final section of the book takes a different tone. Whereas before, we see a blow-by-blow account of every speech of the trial, in the end, Larsen attempts to contextualize and explain the impact of the trial. It is still very well done, but I couldn't help but feel less engaged, simply because the scope is so much broader, which resulted in a less clear narrative at times.
All-in-all, terrific book. Highly recommend.
The final section of the book takes a different tone. Whereas before, we see a blow-by-blow account of every speech of the trial, in the end, Larsen attempts to contextualize and explain the impact of the trial. It is still very well done, but I couldn't help but feel less engaged, simply because the scope is so much broader, which resulted in a less clear narrative at times.
All-in-all, terrific book. Highly recommend.
alisobrig's review
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
4.0
I read this book for a graduate level course on the history of Darwin. I thought it was a very engaging explanation of the cultural, social, legal time of the 1920s and presents a very accurate account of an often misremembered legend. The Scopes Trial has been a popular historical moment I've been interested in since middle school so it was fun to revisit it with more biology, history, and rhetorical knowledge.
drusillamilford's review
2.0
Historical account of the Scopes trial. Rather dry reading. Perhaps I should have chosen another book on the same subject which was not quite so detailed and a bit more interesting.
gulshanbatra's review against another edition
5.0
A fantastic read!
This is a reissue of a past Pulitzer Winner for Non-Fiction, but reads like a page turner. Written with rich details and lustrous backstories of the origins of the argument, sometimes going back decades and even to a century (or millenia, as the subject often demands!), the book is a real treat for anyone even remotely interested in the subject.
The subject matter is laid out in coherent and distinct chapters, building towards the eventual culmination that is now considered old history, but was news of the land in its time.
A must-read.
This is a reissue of a past Pulitzer Winner for Non-Fiction, but reads like a page turner. Written with rich details and lustrous backstories of the origins of the argument, sometimes going back decades and even to a century (or millenia, as the subject often demands!), the book is a real treat for anyone even remotely interested in the subject.
The subject matter is laid out in coherent and distinct chapters, building towards the eventual culmination that is now considered old history, but was news of the land in its time.
A must-read.
christhedoll's review
5.0
So I learned a number of things about the Scope's Trial... Scopes and Dayton city leaders planned it for publicity. The ACLU and WCFA took it over. Scope's lost. The law was never enforced (but textbook makers removed human evolution). Both sides claimed victory.... I like this comment the best ' Who does have "the right" to decide what gets taught as science in the public schools? Creationist parents and teachers, based on their relatively subjective religious beliefs, or professional scientists and educators, based on their relatively objective scientific theories?
ericwelch's review against another edition
5.0
By the late nineteenth century, Darwin's evolutionary theories had been widely accepted by Christian fundamentalists.. The had adopted a form of Lamarckian explanation for changes in form. In fact, James Orr, well-known theologian, wrote in The Fundamentals, " Assume God – as many devout evolutionists do– to be immanent in the evolutionary process, and His intelligence and purpose to be expressed in it; then evolution, so far from conflicting with theism, may become a new and heightened form of theistic argument. What raised their ire was his theory of natural selection with its implicit unguided randomness. Edward J. Larson is the author of an excellent history of the Scopes trial. He reports the history of the debate that led to events in Tennessee. Natural selection had been pretty much ignored until genetics began to supply some evidence for it in the early twentieth century. Genetics provided further evidence that change was due to random variation. This the fundamentalists could not abide. Soon evolution came under attack, natural selection becoming fully identified with all of Darwin. The very nature of science– that is, continual debate– provided ammunition to the forces of darkness although debate and difference of opinion on this subject were not limited to science. Surely religion has been subject to more difference of opinion than perhaps and other theoretical field being as speculative as it is. William Jennings Bryan, the more vocal of opponents to evolution, had his fear fueled by the development of eugenics, a natural outgrowth of the popularization of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Some thirty-five states eventually passed legislation compelling the sexual segregation and sterilization of unfortunates that society chose to label as misfits. Soon eugenics became identified with evolutionary theory and more fat was added to the fire. Bryan was an interesting mix of contradictions. A pacifist and anti-Republican he had resigned from Wilson's Cabinet was war fever erupted. He was a fervent admirer of hard currency yet made millions from land speculation in Florida. Bryan's anti-evolutionist views originated from his view that "the Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection [!] by the operation of the law of hate– the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak." He blamed belief in evolution for WW I and the apparent decline in religious faith. He was not – contrary to the Inherit the Wind version – opposed to an extended geologic time frame, but he resisted vehemently the notion that humans were not created supernaturally. Bryan's majoritarian stance – the majority rules and schools should teach what the majority believes – was a major reason for the entry of the ACLU into the case. The NCLU– forerunner to the ACLU– had been founded by the Quakers to help provide support and defense for their anti-war activities and pacifist members who refused to serve in Wilson's war. The president's statements against disloyalty and his support for legislation against any kind of opposition to the war created a climate that fueled majoritarian thinking. The government had already used the postal service to help suppress any kind of minority point-of-view and the ACLU – originally quite cooperative with the Wilson government – soon became disillusioned. Samuel Walker, ACLU historian, wrote "largely oblivious to civil liberties considerations before the war, the wartime crisis forced them [the ACLU] to abandon their faith in the inevitability of social progress and their majoritarian view of democracy. They now began to see that majority rule and liberty were not necessarily synonymous and thus discovered the First Amendment as a new principle for advancing human freedom." Clarence Darrow's "appropriation" of the defense was not appreciated by the ACLU which wanted to concentrate on the issue of free speech. Darrow just wanted to lampoon the Christian Fundamentalists, a pathetically easy task – it was the only time he volunteered his services. Darrow delighted in challenging the traditional concepts of religion and morality. He hated "do-gooders" and regarded Christianity as a "slave religion that encouraged acquiescence in injustice, a willingness to make do with the mediocre, and complacency in the face of the intolerable." The biblical concept of original sin was to Darrow, "a very dangerous doctrine – silly, impossible and wicked." Yet he had voted for William Jennings Bryan in 1896 As the Democratic candidate for Congress. Many traditional institutions were undergoing radical change at the turn of the century. The university, heretofore, an arm of a church sect, offered little chance for teachers to stray from the party line. The rise of pragmatism led by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, offered a path away from a paradigm of obedience to a central authority and toward "a positive stage ion which empirical investigation would be accepted as the only reliable road to truth." Empiricism soon dominated both sciences and humanities in academic research. The newly formed American Association of University Professors wanted to join in Scopes's defense. They wanted to emphasize the deleterious effects of a popularly orchestrated curriculum. "It is, we believe, a principle to be rigidly adhered to that the decision as to what is taught would be determined not by a popular vote. . . but by teachers and investigators in their respective fields." The lawyer who represented them, John Neal, had been fired by the University of Tennessee in violation of newly created AAUP procedures. (Neal was perhaps not the best choice. A brilliant lawyer and teacher, he was usually late for class, often never appearing, rarely lecturing on the topic at hand, preferring political discourses and giving his students grades of 95 without reading their exams.) Following passage of the law forbidding the teaching of evolution that contradicted the biblical teaching (this odd phraseology was to provide the opening that Darrow needed) the ACLU began looking for a test case site. Most school superintendents wanted nothing to do with the case simply declaring they did not teach Darwinism. The Knoxville superintendent even declared that, "Our teachers have a hard enough time teaching the children how to distinguish between plant and animal life." One suspects he was part vegetable himself. The civic boosters in Dayton lusted at the idea of all the publicity. They were perhaps atypical. A relatively new little town, it was a Republican enclave in a predominantly Democratic south. Even H. L. Mencken was pleasantly surprised. "I expected to find a squalid Southern village, with darkies snoozing on the houseblocks, pigs rooting under the houses, and the inhabitants full of hookworm and malaria. What I found was a country town full of charm and even beauty . . . . Nor is there any evidence in the town of that poisonous spirit which usually shows itself where Christian men gather to defend the great doctrines of their faith." It was not really a fight against evolution for the Daytonites, but rather an attempt to overcome obscurity. It eventually blew up in their faces, as Dayton became the laughingstock of the country. "Powerful social forces converged on Dayton that summer: populist majoritarianism and traditional evangelical faith versus scientific secularianism and modern concepts of individual liberty." "If the anti-evolutionists in Tennessee were aware of the existence of any other religions than their own, they might realize that it is the very genius of religion itself to evolve from primary forms to higher forms. The author of the anti-evolution bill is obviously nearer in mental development to the nomads of early biblical times than he is to the intelligence of the young man [Scopes] who is under trial." Charles Francis Potter
londonmabel's review against another edition
3.0
Extremely detailed, and kind of dry. More for people interested in the history of evangelism and evolution in the US, rather than someone interested in the excitement of the Scopes trial.