Scan barcode
peggyluwho's review against another edition
5.0
5 out of 5 dueling pistols
This is one of my all-time favorite books and was the first novel that made me love historical fiction and how it makes me curious about the factual history that lays beneath it by making it into a story where gaps and questions we will likely never have an answer to are filled in. I enjoy Vidal’s writing, it’s accessible to me and just stylized enough. I like the device of a book-within-a- book as it is employed here but generally am a fan. It obviously doesn’t shy away from some of the less than pleasant realities of the time period, such as slavery, racism, and sexism, but I didn’t read any of it as an endorsement of the prevailing opinions of the time or apologetics. If anything, one of the things about this book that I liked was that it humanized historical figures who are frequently put on a pedestal, the “Founding Fathers”, and showed them with all their glorious flaws on display. It pokes holes in the mythology that they were all interested in government by the masses and that they were unanimously and wholeheartedly committed to democracy. Plots to colonize to the east and south of the United States and install new monarchies were not a thing that I was taught in history classes throughout my childhood, but I did learn about from this book. I took Burr as a starting point and was able to investigate the history further to find out more about not just Aaron Burr, but many of his contemporaries. At the same time, I was entertained.
This is one of my all-time favorite books and was the first novel that made me love historical fiction and how it makes me curious about the factual history that lays beneath it by making it into a story where gaps and questions we will likely never have an answer to are filled in. I enjoy Vidal’s writing, it’s accessible to me and just stylized enough. I like the device of a book-within-a- book as it is employed here but generally am a fan. It obviously doesn’t shy away from some of the less than pleasant realities of the time period, such as slavery, racism, and sexism, but I didn’t read any of it as an endorsement of the prevailing opinions of the time or apologetics. If anything, one of the things about this book that I liked was that it humanized historical figures who are frequently put on a pedestal, the “Founding Fathers”, and showed them with all their glorious flaws on display. It pokes holes in the mythology that they were all interested in government by the masses and that they were unanimously and wholeheartedly committed to democracy. Plots to colonize to the east and south of the United States and install new monarchies were not a thing that I was taught in history classes throughout my childhood, but I did learn about from this book. I took Burr as a starting point and was able to investigate the history further to find out more about not just Aaron Burr, but many of his contemporaries. At the same time, I was entertained.
leah_alexandra's review against another edition
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
I was not expecting to like this so much. What a fun and often thrilling read!
traciemasek's review against another edition
3.0
I started to re-read Lincoln, then Sarah pointed out that Burr is actually the first book in the American Chronicle series, and it makes sense to read them in order, so let's read this instead.
I didn't like this anywhere near as much as I liked Lincoln, but it's still enjoyable, and Burr's a great character. But that's part of the problem, he seemed the whole time a lot more like a character in a novel to me than an actual historical figure. The fictional first person narrator annoyed me a lot, and I think I got lost a few times with the non-linear plot. Also, I don't know anything about the Revolutionary War, nor about the early years of the United States, so maybe Lincoln was just more approachable to me because I knew more of the context? But, man, Vidal loves to use French phrases in this book, and there's nothing that pulls me out of a story more than a phrase I can't understand. But these are details that might just be annoying to me because everything is annoying to me.
But, yeah, three stars still. Even though I basically just did nothing but bitch about the book, I actually wish it had been longer. I could have used a little more information and context, and I felt like large sections were sort of left out. But maybe that's bc most of Burr's memoirs and notes were lost at sea. Glad to have read it, but also glad to move back on to Lincoln.
I didn't like this anywhere near as much as I liked Lincoln, but it's still enjoyable, and Burr's a great character. But that's part of the problem, he seemed the whole time a lot more like a character in a novel to me than an actual historical figure. The fictional first person narrator annoyed me a lot, and I think I got lost a few times with the non-linear plot. Also, I don't know anything about the Revolutionary War, nor about the early years of the United States, so maybe Lincoln was just more approachable to me because I knew more of the context? But, man, Vidal loves to use French phrases in this book, and there's nothing that pulls me out of a story more than a phrase I can't understand. But these are details that might just be annoying to me because everything is annoying to me.
But, yeah, three stars still. Even though I basically just did nothing but bitch about the book, I actually wish it had been longer. I could have used a little more information and context, and I felt like large sections were sort of left out. But maybe that's bc most of Burr's memoirs and notes were lost at sea. Glad to have read it, but also glad to move back on to Lincoln.
jhouses's review against another edition
3.0
Gore Vidal, como hizo en [b:Lincoln|8716|Lincoln|Gore Vidal|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1403185993l/8716._SY75_.jpg|658163], trae a la vida a los intocables y mitificados padres fundadores de los Estados Unidos y los convierte en una panda de políticos marrulleros y miserables que es lo que en el fondo eran.
En esta novela tenemos un narrador poco fiable -el propio Burr- cuyos recuerdos recoge un joven periodista con intenciones confusas: primero hacer un libelo contra el futuro presidente Van Buren, de quien se sospecha que es hijo ilegítimo de Burr, luego conocer la verdadera historia de la relación entre Burr y Hamilton y por último conseguir un cargo en la nueva administración.
El libro tiene una entrada dificil para un lector ignorante de la historia y la política de los Estados Unidos ya que nos presenta varios tiempos mezclados: el ocaso de la vida de Burr en 1840 y diferentes recuerdos no muy ordenados cronológicamente, todos ellos repletos de personajes históricos más o menos desconocidos y de entornos históricos y políticos poco accesibles (para un lector español) y que los personajes dan por descontado y no explican ya que forman parte de su actualidad.
Poco a poco y con la ayuda de la wikipedia la confusión va pasando a segundo plano y Aaaron Burr, Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson y Adams se adueñan de la trama produciendo una historia compleja muy bien construida y llena de matices.
mubeenirfan's review against another edition
3.0
Founding father of the USA meet House of Cards.
We always have this preconceived notion in our mind about the founder(s) of a country. Like how they had ideals about how our country should be and how they must not have engaged in any petty politics as it was beneath them. Fact is, politics is dirty. What happens when you get your country? Do you let it be run by people around you just because they might be better rulers/administrators or have better fundamentals? Or do you do whatever is necessary to seize power because deep down inside you wanted that fame and glory and those were the primary reasons you fought for the independence?
Washington was an incompetent general who never carried the day on battlefield. Hamilton and Jefferson did not see eye to eye and both were more or less discarded from politics. Hamilton was killed in a duel with Burr and President Jefferson then falsely implicated Burr in a treason case, tried to limit the powers of independent judiciary and more or less established a Virginia dynasty over early US politics. These are all the nasty details of USA's founding fathers and probably not talked about because of the sanctity associated with them. American public keeps hearing about the ideals and principles of the founding fathers. I have a sense they might not be ideals worth following after all.
This novel reads like a classic English novel making the writing dense which is the reason it is 3 and not 4 stars.
We always have this preconceived notion in our mind about the founder(s) of a country. Like how they had ideals about how our country should be and how they must not have engaged in any petty politics as it was beneath them. Fact is, politics is dirty. What happens when you get your country? Do you let it be run by people around you just because they might be better rulers/administrators or have better fundamentals? Or do you do whatever is necessary to seize power because deep down inside you wanted that fame and glory and those were the primary reasons you fought for the independence?
Washington was an incompetent general who never carried the day on battlefield. Hamilton and Jefferson did not see eye to eye and both were more or less discarded from politics. Hamilton was killed in a duel with Burr and President Jefferson then falsely implicated Burr in a treason case, tried to limit the powers of independent judiciary and more or less established a Virginia dynasty over early US politics. These are all the nasty details of USA's founding fathers and probably not talked about because of the sanctity associated with them. American public keeps hearing about the ideals and principles of the founding fathers. I have a sense they might not be ideals worth following after all.
This novel reads like a classic English novel making the writing dense which is the reason it is 3 and not 4 stars.
skhan11's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
3.0
ashrafulla's review against another edition
4.0
This is probably my first historical fiction book that I chose on my own. Vidal is right; by writing it under the veil of fiction, the history of Burr is far more accessible than in the droll tone of a history book. When it comes to politics, society and intrigue, a smart reader can take the liberties of fiction while still understanding the history of the situation. Vidal depends on that; if you can't quickly filter the fiction from the fact, you end up lost very quickly. The reason you end up lost is that you continually ask yourself what is true and what isn't.
So don't do that. Read it and enjoy a tale of the intrigue regarding the First Gentry of America. From Burr's words you see a less-than-rosy outlook on the rest of the characters, from Washington all the way down to Hamilton. Taking Burr's small bitterness with a grain of salt, I find that this story humanizes all of the characters. There was no way that Washington could be a prophet or God; it serves him better in my opinion to treat him as a moral and political leader. Burr may have insulted him at every turn, but the respect Burr gives to Washington is what to consider. This goes to all the other characters as well. So don't take Burr's snark as demeaning; take it as his way of making sure we do not deify them.
Enough on the history; the story is extremely well-written. Charlie is fantastic as is Helen. Yes, Helen. She is a great character study of that century when everything was so new and so temporary, and her double demise is tragic. Situating us as Charlie's diary is far better than playing omnipresence because we get the emotion of Charlie's ambition and curiosity. That's the strongest part of this book: it's not just history, it's history through the lens of a middleman.
So don't do that. Read it and enjoy a tale of the intrigue regarding the First Gentry of America. From Burr's words you see a less-than-rosy outlook on the rest of the characters, from Washington all the way down to Hamilton. Taking Burr's small bitterness with a grain of salt, I find that this story humanizes all of the characters. There was no way that Washington could be a prophet or God; it serves him better in my opinion to treat him as a moral and political leader. Burr may have insulted him at every turn, but the respect Burr gives to Washington is what to consider. This goes to all the other characters as well. So don't take Burr's snark as demeaning; take it as his way of making sure we do not deify them.
Enough on the history; the story is extremely well-written. Charlie is fantastic as is Helen. Yes, Helen. She is a great character study of that century when everything was so new and so temporary, and her double demise is tragic. Situating us as Charlie's diary is far better than playing omnipresence because we get the emotion of Charlie's ambition and curiosity. That's the strongest part of this book: it's not just history, it's history through the lens of a middleman.
efost's review against another edition
5.0
The first book I’ve read by Vidal. Loved his writing style and how it brought the story to life. Really unique blend of historical novel and biography! Looking forward to the other books in this series.
soinavoice's review against another edition
4.0
Fantastic character study with great historical detail. Maybe a little cynical for my taste, but witty and nuanced and fabulously well-written.
c2pizza's review against another edition
4.0
I remember hearing the comparison of Gore Vidal to Stendahl a year or so ago and not being able to think anything of it having not read either author. A year later I found myself reading Burr at home and The Red and the Black at work and constantly overlapping the plots in my mind which rarely happens. So I have to support the notion that Gore Vidal is the Stendahl of the 20th century and that everyone should read both of them.