Scan barcode
A review by holtfan
The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington by Robert D. Novak
5.0
After four years of trying, I have finally finished The Prince of Darkness by Robert Novak.
That’s saying something.
It normally does not take me four years to finish a book. In fact, it rarely takes me more than a week if I’m busy. I began this book because this guy recommended it to my Dad. Being an ambitious kid, I decided to pick it up. And I enjoyed it. A lot. But, if you hadn’t noticed, it’s a little bit thick. It’s a little bit dry. It’s, frankly, just a little bit intimidating. I would get it from the library, make it through several chapters, and then return it. When the fancy struck me to read it again, I’d get it from the library, forget where I was last time, and start from the beginning again.
This was the book that inspired me to begin political blogs with my friend. It was the book that interested me in journalism. It opened up history in a way I’d never thought to view it before, and for that it is fascinating. Yesterday, I sat down with The Prince of Darkness and began at page one. Today I finished it. That is 639 pages.
In this book, Novak explores a lifetime of journaling, including his fifty years in Washington DC. It is both a personal memoir and a political treatise. In his own words, Novak describes the book as “my personal experience as a columnist and a commentator, my interactions with the famous and powerful, and the nation’s political developments over those fifty years (including the historical political realignment).” Between side comments about his drinking, financial situation, and personal details is a wealth of political knowledge. Novak remembers when FDR was president. That’s a long time. His personal experience with presidents, senators, newspapermen, and aids provide a well-spring on politics and human behavior.
Some of the politicians I easily recognized. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Goldwater are all fairly big names! I enjoyed his commentary on people like Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum (did he guess they’d run for president? xD). The 2000 election between President Bush and Al Gore was the first election I actively campaigned in (I was 7 or 8) and I remember seeing then Governor Bush speak. That is history I know. I liked seeing how things panned out in DC.
But, glancing farther back, this book is a terrific history lesson. I love Novak’s description of people. I love his nickname (Prince of Darkness). Most of all, I love reading about the politics going on during a time now consigned to the history books. After all, I can read about President Kennedy or Dr. King in my textbooks. They get a nice paragraph or two or maybe a chapter if they’re lucky. To read about what they were actually like though, to get the opinion of a man standing in the crowd during Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech is an entirely neat experience. It breathes life into the recent past. I mean, Lyndon B. Johnson hosted his wedding reception!
A big theme in the book is Novak’s exonerating himself from the Valerie Plame Affair. I personally have no recollection of this and so I am in no position to judge whether or not he does it fairly. But, it provides an interesting glimpse into the working of the media. Though he doesn’t specifically draw the conclusion/theme, there is a fascinating line from where Novak began in early DC where he would be invited to mingle with prominent politicians to the end, where a liberal new media berates him for refusing to identify a source.
Washington DC experienced a great deal of change in fifty years. He talks about political realignment, key battleground states, and the masterminds “begin the politicians.” His writing is often dry, tending towards his columnist nature, but still fascinating. I wouldn’t recommend reading it all in one sitting.
Because it is a memoir, Novak carries with him his own prejudices. He often mentions his prejudice (for example, against McLaughlin) but not always. Because of this, I’d recommend reading the book with a grain of salt. He often makes comments about how he criticized the Bush administration and was not their lapdog. Obviously, someone accused him of being a Bush lapdog and he didn’t like it.
I have a ton of respect for his wife Geraldine. She sure put up with a lot from Novak! Always traveling, arriving home late, and hardly getting to know his kids…she must be a remarkable woman. I also wonder what his kids think of him. While Novak mentions his daughter Zelda with affection and pride, his son goes almost unmentioned in comparison. A brilliant career like Novak’s often comes at a price.
Though his discussion of his conversion to Catholicism is not lengthy, I found it fascinating. I love his comment about the Holy Spirit. He doesn’t preach about his conversion. In fact, it would be easy to miss it. But it illustrates a part of the man Novak became in later life. He was a man who rarely missed a day of work, and after breaking his hip, had an article on the press for Monday. That just blows my mind. He was truly a remarkable, once-in-a-life-time sort of person.
When Robert Novak died, I was the only one of my friends who knew who he was. Though he made a huge impact in the DC area, his memory fades. He “darkened” DC for over fifty years and made quite the impact on history. The scoops he revealed in his paper made and destroyed politicians for years. The opportunity to glance at a lifetime of knowledge through his eyes is truly cool one.
Would I recommend The Prince of Darkness? Absolutely. In fact, I would go so far as to urge buying a copy of the book. It isn’t something you just read once and are satisfied. It takes digging into. There is so much history, commentary, wisdom in these pages. It ought to be bought for every political science major. It should be given to every teenager with an inclination to go into political journalism. It is an interesting read, not only about the politics of the United States since FDR, but about life and career. It is books like these that are vastly more interesting and effective in learning about history than textbooks, in my opinion. He comes with biases, sure, but at least he is generally open about them. And if you are anything like me, reading something like this only spurs you to read more.
And so, to my fellow Generation Joshua political nerds, and to people with an inclination for politics in general, I recommend this book. It is an insider’s memoir. It projects a time long past. It is, in conclusion, a very worthy read.
That’s saying something.
It normally does not take me four years to finish a book. In fact, it rarely takes me more than a week if I’m busy. I began this book because this guy recommended it to my Dad. Being an ambitious kid, I decided to pick it up. And I enjoyed it. A lot. But, if you hadn’t noticed, it’s a little bit thick. It’s a little bit dry. It’s, frankly, just a little bit intimidating. I would get it from the library, make it through several chapters, and then return it. When the fancy struck me to read it again, I’d get it from the library, forget where I was last time, and start from the beginning again.
This was the book that inspired me to begin political blogs with my friend. It was the book that interested me in journalism. It opened up history in a way I’d never thought to view it before, and for that it is fascinating. Yesterday, I sat down with The Prince of Darkness and began at page one. Today I finished it. That is 639 pages.
In this book, Novak explores a lifetime of journaling, including his fifty years in Washington DC. It is both a personal memoir and a political treatise. In his own words, Novak describes the book as “my personal experience as a columnist and a commentator, my interactions with the famous and powerful, and the nation’s political developments over those fifty years (including the historical political realignment).” Between side comments about his drinking, financial situation, and personal details is a wealth of political knowledge. Novak remembers when FDR was president. That’s a long time. His personal experience with presidents, senators, newspapermen, and aids provide a well-spring on politics and human behavior.
Some of the politicians I easily recognized. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Goldwater are all fairly big names! I enjoyed his commentary on people like Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum (did he guess they’d run for president? xD). The 2000 election between President Bush and Al Gore was the first election I actively campaigned in (I was 7 or 8) and I remember seeing then Governor Bush speak. That is history I know. I liked seeing how things panned out in DC.
But, glancing farther back, this book is a terrific history lesson. I love Novak’s description of people. I love his nickname (Prince of Darkness). Most of all, I love reading about the politics going on during a time now consigned to the history books. After all, I can read about President Kennedy or Dr. King in my textbooks. They get a nice paragraph or two or maybe a chapter if they’re lucky. To read about what they were actually like though, to get the opinion of a man standing in the crowd during Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech is an entirely neat experience. It breathes life into the recent past. I mean, Lyndon B. Johnson hosted his wedding reception!
A big theme in the book is Novak’s exonerating himself from the Valerie Plame Affair. I personally have no recollection of this and so I am in no position to judge whether or not he does it fairly. But, it provides an interesting glimpse into the working of the media. Though he doesn’t specifically draw the conclusion/theme, there is a fascinating line from where Novak began in early DC where he would be invited to mingle with prominent politicians to the end, where a liberal new media berates him for refusing to identify a source.
Washington DC experienced a great deal of change in fifty years. He talks about political realignment, key battleground states, and the masterminds “begin the politicians.” His writing is often dry, tending towards his columnist nature, but still fascinating. I wouldn’t recommend reading it all in one sitting.
Because it is a memoir, Novak carries with him his own prejudices. He often mentions his prejudice (for example, against McLaughlin) but not always. Because of this, I’d recommend reading the book with a grain of salt. He often makes comments about how he criticized the Bush administration and was not their lapdog. Obviously, someone accused him of being a Bush lapdog and he didn’t like it.
I have a ton of respect for his wife Geraldine. She sure put up with a lot from Novak! Always traveling, arriving home late, and hardly getting to know his kids…she must be a remarkable woman. I also wonder what his kids think of him. While Novak mentions his daughter Zelda with affection and pride, his son goes almost unmentioned in comparison. A brilliant career like Novak’s often comes at a price.
Though his discussion of his conversion to Catholicism is not lengthy, I found it fascinating. I love his comment about the Holy Spirit. He doesn’t preach about his conversion. In fact, it would be easy to miss it. But it illustrates a part of the man Novak became in later life. He was a man who rarely missed a day of work, and after breaking his hip, had an article on the press for Monday. That just blows my mind. He was truly a remarkable, once-in-a-life-time sort of person.
When Robert Novak died, I was the only one of my friends who knew who he was. Though he made a huge impact in the DC area, his memory fades. He “darkened” DC for over fifty years and made quite the impact on history. The scoops he revealed in his paper made and destroyed politicians for years. The opportunity to glance at a lifetime of knowledge through his eyes is truly cool one.
Would I recommend The Prince of Darkness? Absolutely. In fact, I would go so far as to urge buying a copy of the book. It isn’t something you just read once and are satisfied. It takes digging into. There is so much history, commentary, wisdom in these pages. It ought to be bought for every political science major. It should be given to every teenager with an inclination to go into political journalism. It is an interesting read, not only about the politics of the United States since FDR, but about life and career. It is books like these that are vastly more interesting and effective in learning about history than textbooks, in my opinion. He comes with biases, sure, but at least he is generally open about them. And if you are anything like me, reading something like this only spurs you to read more.
And so, to my fellow Generation Joshua political nerds, and to people with an inclination for politics in general, I recommend this book. It is an insider’s memoir. It projects a time long past. It is, in conclusion, a very worthy read.