| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Part One - Jan 17: James Fallows Joseph Ellis Part Two - Jan 19: James Fallows Joseph Ellis Part Three - Jan 20: James Fallows Joseph Ellis Joseph J. Ellis is the Ford Foundation Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College. Among his previous books are Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams (1993) and American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (1997), which won the National Book Award. He lives in Amherst, Massachusetts. James Fallows is The Atlantic's national correspondent and the author, most recently, of Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy (1996). More by James Fallows More on books More on politics Join the conversation in Post & Riposte. |
fallows@large | Dialogues with James Fallows  An exchange with the historian Joseph J. Ellis, author of Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation ..... To: Joseph Ellis From: James Fallows Subject: Our Committee of Correspondence Dear Prof. Ellis: Greetings and congratulations on your delightful new book.
But first, a few words to the audience, in particular anyone who has not yet read the book. Those words are: read it! Founding Brothers is an exceptionally fine illustration of how history can be written when an author wants to develop new evidence and interpretations for professional colleagues—but also cares about reaching the non-specialist reader with clear, engaging prose and important themes. For at least twenty years, the complaint about academia in general and the humanities in particular has been that professors have become totally wrapped up in obscure methodological tong-wars. While they fight their battles and settle their scores, they have (according to the complaint) neglected the big themes of history—and displayed no interest at all in readers who weren't also professors. We can all think of useful exceptions to this rule—and while most professors of English are as willfully obscure as ever, it seems to me that there's a heartening trend among historians. But whether or not a general trend exists, Founding Brothers sets a wonderful example. The scheme for your book, as described in the introduction, is similar to that of Lytton Strachey's Eminent Victorians. That is, like Strachey you are presenting a cast of characters with genuinely entwined lives, interests, views, and effects on the world. In your case these include the country's first four Presidents (Washington through Madison), an early Vice President (Burr), and two other inherently fascinating figures, Hamilton and Franklin. Rather than undertaking one mammoth narrative of their actions before, during, and after the Revolutionary War, you present a number of overlapping portraits of the players. Many of these portraits evolve into two-player dramas—for instance, the late-in-life correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, after many years of frosty silence, or, of course, the drama between Hamilton and Burr that led to Hamilton's death at Burr's hands, in a duel. And nearly all of the joint portraits involve basic political themes—for instance, the attempt by Madison (and others) to keep the slavery question entirely out of the Constitution, for fear that any attempt to resolve it would make the act of union impossible. Along the way, you make the characters vivid and believable. My impression is that you admire George Washington most, enjoy the (surprisingly!) lusty John Adams best, and like the posturing Thomas Jefferson least. I know, academics aren't supposed to think in those terms—but I think you'd choose Adams to go out with and have a beer. (The one of these guys I've always wished I could meet for a chat is Hamilton.) You'll be relieved to hear that I'm about to move out of book-report mode. Now let me suggest a few questions raised by your book, which I think you can answer even for those who haven't read it. I have hundreds of little comments written on the book's pages, but let me kick off this discussion with just three: one about the craft of history, one about ideas in politics, and one about human talent. First, about the work of the professional historian: Why don't more of your colleagues try to write books of this sort? Okay, let me make a point that might be awkward for you to emphasize. This kind of writing is hard. It's easier to crank out the catch phrases of the moment. Still, more people are presumably capable of writing to general readers than actually do it. So my question is, in the world of modern academic life, what are the incentives and penalties for going down the path you've recently taken? Second, about issues. Everyone knows that certain big moral, social, and political questions endure through the ages. But your book seems to suggest more than that. Almost any issue that has come up in the past half-dozen presidential campaigns can be mapped back to the debates you describe in your book. George W. Bush on the inherent evils of big government seems to be the direct descendant of Thomas Jefferson in some of the arguments you describe. Bush, once again, on the evils of "nation building" in foreign policy would fit right along side of George Washington—and against Jefferson. The 2000 election results showed a dramatic split between big-city voters (who strongly favored Gore) and everyone else. And of course the black/white split. All of these have their clear analogues early on. Without going through the whole laundry list, my question is: To what extent do the real issues of politics ever change? Is it just an endless series of updatings of the same two or three themes? Finally, regarding talent. Jefferson argued with Hamilton about the role of the state, and with Washington about the role of the U.S. in the world. When George W. Bush argues with Al Gore about these issues ... it's not quite the same. How should we think about the stature gap? Did those times make great men? Is our current crop better than we conventionally think? Over to you for some answers—and, who knows, perhaps even reassurance. One other question: Do you really like Adams best? Jim Fallows
Next Page: Joseph Ellis - Jan. 17
Part Two - Jan 19: James Fallows | Joseph Ellis Part Three (Conclusion) - Jan 20: James Fallows | Joseph Ellis
What do you think? Discuss this article in Post & Riposte's Politics & Society conference. More on books in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. More on politics in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. Copyright © 2001 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. | [an error occurred while processing this directive] | ||||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||||
