Challenges discussion

It sounds like most people are getting ready to start John Adams if they haven't already. The Washington book definitely left a lot to be desired about our second President, so I know I'm very excited for this one.

Ready? Set? GO!

Just to confirm, are we definitely reading the McCullough?

If so, I plan on reading it while having his incredibly voice in my head.

I think so. Everyone seemed to reference that one, and no others.

I'm about a 100 pages in and a couple of things have resonated with me. Adams' relationship with Abigail is legit. Maybe because Martha burned her correspondence but Washington's marriage seemed purely out of convenience. Also, McCullough's "reliance" on primary sources is making the narrative... Interesting. I'm not completely sold on using full paragraphs taken directly from the source to build the story. Washington kept volumes but it did not seem his biography used them as heavily as Adams' is so far.

I've heard about John and Abigail's relationship previously. I'm so excited to delve more into it. From what I understand it's exceptionally romantic in an unromantic way if that makes sense. Although what you're saying about McCullough's primary sources does make me a bit nervous - this might be an even slower read for me!

I think he quotes at length from his journals and letters because they are so revealing. It is genuinely astounding how different a picture of Adams I'm able to get compared to what Chernow could offer. He had a lot of letters to work with but those are meant for the public and therefore highly performative and full of posturing. With Adams we get his personal journal and a greater sense of his real thoughts and feelings. I feel like he is so much more alive in McCullough than Washington ever was in Chernow. Although in fair ess to him, that was surely a result of the source rather than his abilities as a writer.

One thing I'm noticing in common between these bios is the need for someone to be cast almost as a villain. In Chernow, Adams comes off somewhat poorly, while in McCullough (up to the point I've reached), Franklin becomes something of an antagonist. Is this just something in the nature of biography and the need to create conflict/tension?
I find it interesting that if you only read Chernow, you'd probably think Adams was a jerk, which isn't at all how I feel reading McCullough. At the same time, I've read a lot about Franklin and he does not come across even remotely as captivating in McCullough's depiction. Just thought I'd throw that out there for the group's consideration.

Mike wrote: "One thing I'm noticing in common between these bios is the need for someone to be cast almost as a villain. In Chernow, Adams comes off somewhat poorly, while in McCullough (up to the point I've re..."

My basic understanding of Franklin is that he was not the chummy, womanizing genius that we believe him to be today. For example, his 'womanizing' is actually now being re-evaluated, and many believe that he was entirely faithful. For as down-to-earth as he is painted, he had an extremely big head as well which is what made Franklin and Adams bump heads in France. Adams is a nerd and a pragmatist, while Franklin (like Washington) is good at many many things, politician being one of them. A key aspect of a politician is being able to fit in and be liked in social situations, something the jerk Adams could never really do. While I don't think that makes any of the three (Washington, Adams, Franklin) villains, it highlights their differences and the personality clashes between them. Honestly a big part of the Adams vs. Washington/Franklin threads could simply be that Adams was a jealous nelly, and lashed out like a crotchety old man might.

To clarify, I don't mean that any one of them actually should be viewed as a villain. And perhaps that's too strong a word in general. I was just thinking about the nature of biography and the need to amplify conflicts. So the Adams you get depends entirely on who the focus of the book happens to be.

I'd also be curious to see where you saw the re-evaluation of Franklin. He's a fascinating guy and some of the stories around him are surely exaggerated. Although I would point out that he had an illegitimate son who was a Loyalist and colonial governor of New Jersey, so we couldn't have been entirely faithful! Maybe he was just a little less of a hound than we've been led to believe?!

I liked the description of Franklin's lady friend in Paris. Franklin and Adams had very different views of the lady's merits.

I find it hard to believe that Franklin would be faithful especially since he spent years abroad and was so uninterested in his family in America. He was also extremely flirty in his letters to the young single ladies. (based on the Franklin bio by Walter Isaacson)

Love your description, Meg, of Adams as a nerd and a jealous nelly. ha ha

Personally I liked the Adams I met in McCullough's biography. He seemed truer to his beliefs, he didn't own slaves, and he valued thrift and hard work.

sorry- I'm really good at reading the comments and then suck at actually writing my own.

I see what you're saying Mike- it's the hero's storyline, we need some conflict. Not necessarily Disney villain but someone to clash with. And I think you're right, his journals do reflect a bit more of his inner thoughts than the public persona Washington crafted in his correspondence.

I've always been partial to Franklin because we're birthday buddies but he is a dynamic character. Based off the stereotypical scientist personality, it's a wonder that Franklin was a great diplomat as he was.

So where is everyone with Adams? I finished last week and I loved it. I thought McCullough did such a wonderful job using Adams's materials to bring him to life. Even if he did get a bit too defensive of him, particularly when it came to this presidency. Looking forward to hearing what the rest of you thought!

Going to try to finish this weekend. About 2/3 through.

Finally getting a snow day. Have about 100 pages left. I'm a little disappointed that so much has been also focused on Jefferson too. And maybe it's because he played a large role in his life but I want a biography about Adams not his friends.

Hey all had a sudden death

Dammit. Sudden death in my family so will try to catch up ASAP keep plowing along! Lisa I would love to hear more about your impressions of Jefferson based on Adams book!

I think that it would be hard to write about either Adams or Jefferson without the other featuring prominently in the story. They were just so closely intertwined and they represent the two main diverging factions of that era in so many ways.

I do sympathize with Lisa's feelings, though, which I think might be a symptom of reading these bios in order. You're going to see a lot of the same characters popping up over and over again.

Hope all is well Meg. Well, my impressions with Jefferson from McCullogh's book is that he is a selfish ass. That might be a little harsh- but he never seems to be available at the right time, right place. He goes home for months at a time, barely showing up for session, summons his daughter to Europe who thinks he's a complete stranger, crazy spends money (maybe that was a Virginian thing? Washington did it too...). Though my impression from Meechum's book is vastly different, which I'll save for that thread.

Now reading Meechum, I am thoroughly absorbed in his writing style. I really liked Adams more as a president but found McCullogh's style stifling. I felt like he had a tendency to summarize or attempt to guess at what Adams was thinking at time, whereas Chernov withheld opinion and let Washington's life speak for itself.