rick2's review against another edition
4.0
Good book for what it is. The Washington Post nonfiction book review guy writes a banger of an analysis on the torrent of political books during and about the Trump Eea. It’s like Cliff Notes for all of the political books you said you would but never did read this year.
Ive read a lot of the books talked about, from the wide variety of political cover letters masquerading as memoirs, to the denser Muller Report. Much of what I read this year was politically interested due to the election. Searching for definitions, explanations, clever dissections of our shared experience. But words and books are tricky, and political authors usually have thinly veiled agendas. A good author can obscure the truth just as much as a great author can reveal it.
At some point you grow tired of the hand ringing, the self interest, having to fact check what you read. sometimes I get tired of of whatever the latest pulp non-fiction turned out about the Trump administration. Whatever defector is helping to preserve their reputation as they flee the sinking ship. Whatever concerned “Citizen“ has engaged in written hand ringing about the death of (pick one: truth, media, democracy, civility, unwarranted sexual harassment). Over what topic will the next author mince the thesaurus in order to find Amillion synonyms for “unprecedented despicable behavior” or “fake news”
The torrent of people with no distinguishable writing ability or clarity of thought, yet the desire to say something is seemingly unlimited. Anyone with the platform and opposable thumbs can make their opinions known widely. Myself included. The “soul of America” is as elusive as a real soul in that it probably doesn’t exist but as widely poeticized. The “two Americas” the “split Americas” it’s just this avalanche of new jargon and bad analysis. And like a cold drink of water after a summer run in Texas, this book is refreshing in its contrast. Lozada does not have a monopoly on the truth, but he does not seem to buy into much of the hyperbolic bullshit others do. Maybe it’s a tempered opinion from having read 100+ hyperbolic tomes himself. Or from just a differing temperament to a talk show news host.
Because of this, reading this book felt like finding a friend. A fellow traveler on the road to understanding. Another seeker in the journey to enlightenment.
Lozada writes clearly. If it times a little exhaustingly with the absolute breath of reading that he’s done. I now understand why my friends mother “shut the fuck up Rick“ when I bring up yet another reference to The most recent book I’ve read. Or when I recommend yet another addition to their to read pile before have a chance to read the last book I recommended. I appreciate all the recommendations but it did feel a bit overwhelming.
His analysis of #MeToo, the Muller report, and the onslaught of “tell all” memoirs that actually tell a little is thoughtful and on par with the standards of the Washington post.
In all I enjoyed this book a lot. But it might fall flat if you are less familiar with many of the books mentioned.
Ive read a lot of the books talked about, from the wide variety of political cover letters masquerading as memoirs, to the denser Muller Report. Much of what I read this year was politically interested due to the election. Searching for definitions, explanations, clever dissections of our shared experience. But words and books are tricky, and political authors usually have thinly veiled agendas. A good author can obscure the truth just as much as a great author can reveal it.
At some point you grow tired of the hand ringing, the self interest, having to fact check what you read. sometimes I get tired of of whatever the latest pulp non-fiction turned out about the Trump administration. Whatever defector is helping to preserve their reputation as they flee the sinking ship. Whatever concerned “Citizen“ has engaged in written hand ringing about the death of (pick one: truth, media, democracy, civility, unwarranted sexual harassment). Over what topic will the next author mince the thesaurus in order to find Amillion synonyms for “unprecedented despicable behavior” or “fake news”
The torrent of people with no distinguishable writing ability or clarity of thought, yet the desire to say something is seemingly unlimited. Anyone with the platform and opposable thumbs can make their opinions known widely. Myself included. The “soul of America” is as elusive as a real soul in that it probably doesn’t exist but as widely poeticized. The “two Americas” the “split Americas” it’s just this avalanche of new jargon and bad analysis. And like a cold drink of water after a summer run in Texas, this book is refreshing in its contrast. Lozada does not have a monopoly on the truth, but he does not seem to buy into much of the hyperbolic bullshit others do. Maybe it’s a tempered opinion from having read 100+ hyperbolic tomes himself. Or from just a differing temperament to a talk show news host.
Because of this, reading this book felt like finding a friend. A fellow traveler on the road to understanding. Another seeker in the journey to enlightenment.
Lozada writes clearly. If it times a little exhaustingly with the absolute breath of reading that he’s done. I now understand why my friends mother “shut the fuck up Rick“ when I bring up yet another reference to The most recent book I’ve read. Or when I recommend yet another addition to their to read pile before have a chance to read the last book I recommended. I appreciate all the recommendations but it did feel a bit overwhelming.
His analysis of #MeToo, the Muller report, and the onslaught of “tell all” memoirs that actually tell a little is thoughtful and on par with the standards of the Washington post.
In all I enjoyed this book a lot. But it might fall flat if you are less familiar with many of the books mentioned.
pamiverson's review against another edition
4.0
A Washington Post book reviewer takes on the task of reading 150 books written about the Trump years. Interesting analyses, looking at themes and how well writers/journalists capture and explain what was happening. I've read some of the books, and agree with his analyses. But there are also others I want to read.
Written in the summer of 2020 -- there have been a lot of books since then, and I know there will be more...
Written in the summer of 2020 -- there have been a lot of books since then, and I know there will be more...
avisholkoff's review against another edition
5.0
On the outset, I thought this was basically Sparknotes for the Trump era. On some level, that is what it is, and it achieves this goal well. However, I learned all of the books really do say a lot about the U.S's mindset the last few years and gave great suggestions for books to read.
I thought the sections about the "Heartland" and "See Some I.D." were particularly interesting, as was the final chapter "In Plain View" about Democracy, the future, etc. I also appreciated that he enjoyed some of the books I have loved over the past few years, including [b:Know My Name|50196744|Know My Name|Chanel Miller|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1567612158l/50196744._SX50_SY75_.jpg|73239835] and [b:The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy|46266188|The Fifth Risk Undoing Democracy|Michael Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1562687004l/46266188._SY75_.jpg|62158447]
Lozada is also a smart thinker and his insights and summaries are well-written and thought provoking. Strongly recommend this book. I learned a lot.
I thought the sections about the "Heartland" and "See Some I.D." were particularly interesting, as was the final chapter "In Plain View" about Democracy, the future, etc. I also appreciated that he enjoyed some of the books I have loved over the past few years, including [b:Know My Name|50196744|Know My Name|Chanel Miller|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1567612158l/50196744._SX50_SY75_.jpg|73239835] and [b:The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy|46266188|The Fifth Risk Undoing Democracy|Michael Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1562687004l/46266188._SY75_.jpg|62158447]
Lozada is also a smart thinker and his insights and summaries are well-written and thought provoking. Strongly recommend this book. I learned a lot.
rhiannoncs's review against another edition
4.0
When I was purchasing books for my library, I used to joke that I was going to stop buying the Trump books and use that money for romance novels and books about kittens and other things that make people happy. Because the sheer amount of vitriol filling the shelves was making nobody happy. Lozada, the Washington Post book critic, proved himself to be a True American Hero by reading all of the political nonfiction of the Trump era and summarizing it for the rest of us in a succinct 250 pages. He groups the books together, making the connections necessary to see them as the collective conversation we have been having over the last four years. It seems really vital right now to get a sense of that discourse as we try to figure out where we go from here.
miguelf's review
3.0
It was probably inevitable that someone would come out with a book about all the Trump related books that have been published the past 4 years. For those that have spent, or some would say wasted, a lot of their reading time these books it was interesting to see what someone would say about this unique historical time period. Unfortunately, Lozada spends a lot of time on the cultural books that have come out. There’s just not as much ink used on the political books – they are included but more toward the end and without as much coverage. He seems to want to be a balanced arbiter throughout the overview but at the same time he is fairly critical toward a lot of the literature. That’s not necessarily a band thing but it feels like criticism at times to be a ‘critic’ rather than helping the reader understand our time any better.
At the conclusion he recommends 12 out of the 300 or so that he’s reviewed and since I only had listened to or read ½ of them I can't say for certain if I concur, but I would agree that ‘On Tyranny’, ‘America for Americans’, and ‘Unmaking the Presidency’ are some of the best of the bunch. As to this book it wouldn’t be among those on the final 12 unfortunately.
At the conclusion he recommends 12 out of the 300 or so that he’s reviewed and since I only had listened to or read ½ of them I can't say for certain if I concur, but I would agree that ‘On Tyranny’, ‘America for Americans’, and ‘Unmaking the Presidency’ are some of the best of the bunch. As to this book it wouldn’t be among those on the final 12 unfortunately.
__karen__'s review against another edition
5.0
This is a book about books.
Lozada, a Washington Post book critic, read numerous books written during and about the Trump era to better understand the era itself and to identify those books he found most illuminating. His perspective as an immigrant and recently naturalized American citizen makes this an even more interesting read.
This isn't a matter of Lozada reading these books so the rest of us don't have to. Rather, What Were We Thinking serves as a starting point for readers interested in this point in history. Highly recommended.
Lozada, a Washington Post book critic, read numerous books written during and about the Trump era to better understand the era itself and to identify those books he found most illuminating. His perspective as an immigrant and recently naturalized American citizen makes this an even more interesting read.
This isn't a matter of Lozada reading these books so the rest of us don't have to. Rather, What Were We Thinking serves as a starting point for readers interested in this point in history. Highly recommended.
dommdy's review
4.0
Difficult but necessary read for me. I want to try and understand why the Orange Menace has such a hold on people in our society, to the point of so many lives lost when it could have been so easily prevented. The delta variant continues to kill the unvaccinated, some children not eligible to get a vaccine yet, and the unvaccinated remain unmoved.
suzannekm's review
5.0
Lozada read all the books so you don’t have to, and I think this is a case of the sum being more than the parts. The books are able to interact here in a way that would be impossible if I were just reading them as a series.
Plus the invaluable insights and reactions of Lozada. Highly recommend.
Plus the invaluable insights and reactions of Lozada. Highly recommend.
gregbrown's review against another edition
2.0
Woof. The project here is kind of flawed from the start: squeezing about a dozen books into each 25-page chapter. So each book gets about two brief pages in a double-spaced, generous margins book that cuts the word count even further—only enough for a quick gloss before we're onto the next one.
In a larger sense, it points out the limitations of having a book critic dealing with this stuff, since Lozada only makes glancing mention of facts outside of each book's purview. Even supplemented by other contemporaneous books he's read, this is still hacking out huge chunks of context that any historian or other profession would be able to bring to the game. Rather than an effort like we'd see in the New York Review of Books, where subject matter experts use a few books as the launching point for a larger discussion, too often we're limited to pointing out each book's internal contradictions —or what it does well or poorly or just differently than other books at the time.
As a result, Lozada only makes the most centrist, milquetoast critiques of these books, leaving you with just a brief summary and observation on most. It feels pitched at busy people who want to sound competent at parties, I guess.
In a larger sense, it points out the limitations of having a book critic dealing with this stuff, since Lozada only makes glancing mention of facts outside of each book's purview. Even supplemented by other contemporaneous books he's read, this is still hacking out huge chunks of context that any historian or other profession would be able to bring to the game. Rather than an effort like we'd see in the New York Review of Books, where subject matter experts use a few books as the launching point for a larger discussion, too often we're limited to pointing out each book's internal contradictions —or what it does well or poorly or just differently than other books at the time.
As a result, Lozada only makes the most centrist, milquetoast critiques of these books, leaving you with just a brief summary and observation on most. It feels pitched at busy people who want to sound competent at parties, I guess.