"Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect?" edited by Saul Cornell and Robert E. Shalhope is a collection of essays and journal articles debating the interpretations of the Second Amendment by top notch historians on the subject. The book encourage debate and therefore has a well balanced assortment of articles covering the full spectrum of debate concerning the Second Amendment.

Books from the "Historians at Work Series" are designed to encourage debate and deeper thinking on a particular historiographic issue in American history. Books from the "Historians at Work Series" are designed for upper-level undergraduate and graduate level American history courses. This being said, its not an introductory text. The authors of the articles go directly into their subjects, with little significant background information. Therefore, you need to have an historical base-level to work from. Nonetheless, it is an excellent tool for students, scholars and general readers of American history.

Editions in the "Historians at Work" publish the entire article or essay, introduce the author and most importantly: it includes all endnotes--a rarity for books that are collections of articles/essays on a related topic.

Overall, an excellent representation on early American historical scholarship.

ADDED NOTE: The final chapter in this book, writen by Michael Bellesiles and his book were later found to be full of misrepresentation and misconduct in research. He has since lost his award and has resigned from his position @ Emory University.

As some reviewers have mentioned, this book presupposes you know a lot about Augustine before you read this. This assessment is correct--you do. Wills freqently stops in mid-discusssion to get into arguing with other translaters about whether a given word should be translated one way or the other. And if you don't know about Augustine's life (presumably true, if you're reading a biography), you have no idea why the author is making a big deal about each translation point. And they are numerous.

In addition, key facts that most biographers would introduce for the reader are skipped. For example, he refers to the Maximus the Usurper in his pages as if you should know who he is. Who Maximus is or why he is important is never explained. Other references to key players are left similarly unexplained.

Other parts that are suspicious. After a long explanation of the origins of the word 'confession' and its use in Augustine's time, Wills decides to call Augustine's most famous work not by its universal title "The Confessions" but "The Testimony." What is the point of renaming a book that is known by everyone under one name? Everytime he refers to the Testimony, you mentally correct it to the Confessions. This is a pointless distraction and it makes you suspicious of what other titles have been intenetionally retranslated to something no one would recognize.

Likewise, he gives the name Una to Augustine's mistress, even though there is no record this was her name.

Personally, I don't like this kind of self-created biography. I was expecting a book that would lay out Augustine's life, and at various points dip deeply into the theological debates and explain Augustine's views in the context of his times and also detail how they affected Catholic/Christian thinking after him. This is not that book. This is a treatise arguing for a different translation of Augustine; it's not a biography.

I wanted very much to like this book, and I did by the time Ifinished and reflected on it. A short biography of Augustine, aninfluential but little-known (to modern Americans) figure in Western history, was a great idea. Writing a biography of someone like Augustine is difficult -- little information is available other than Augustine's surviving writings. The successful biographer needs to ground the available information, and a critical rereading of previous biographies, in our current understanding of the state of society at that time. Garry Wills has pulled that off nicely.

Augustine lived in interesting times: Church doctrine was evolving and identifying heretical docrines (e.g., Donatists); the Roman Empire was effectively split in two, with the Western capital moved from Rome to Ravenna; and (mainly) Christianized "barbarian" groups were taking over large sections of the Western Empire (Alaric's Goths captured Rome during Augustine's lifetime, and Augustine died near the end of the Vandal conquest of Roman Africa). Wills successfully places Augustine's life in context of these important events.

Other Amazon reviewers have noted that this is not a good introductory volume. I disagree, as long as the reader has some knowledge of the historical period. Even in that case, however, the early sections of the book can drag -- e.g., with lengthy reinterpretations of specific Augustinian phrases. But how can one complain about an Augustine biography that (in the final pages, anyhow) manages to incorporate discussions of both Roth's "Portnoy's Complaint" and Chesterton's "Secrets of Father Brown"?

I was prompted to read this book after reading E.L. Doctorow's novel, City of God. I wanted to learn more about Augustine to think further about the obvious allusion in Doctorow's title, and throughout his book. I had read Augustine before, and was not a total newcomer to his thought. But I need a refresher and something that would expand my limited understanding.

Wills's book is short, clearly written, and presents in an accessible form something of the nature of this complex person, thinker, and theologian. But the book is no mere introduction. It in many ways takes issue with other accounts of Augustine and presents him in a manner that shows why he is worthy of the attention of the modern reader, as he has been of readers throughout the ages.

Wills spends a lot of time arguing that the title "Confessions" for Augustine's most famous work is inappropriate and retitles it "Testimony". This point has been made many times before, but in the process Wills does teach us something about the book. The process is not merely a pedantic exercise. Wills also argues that Augustine was not a sexual libertine in his youth and, actually more importantly for the modern reader, that he was not anti-sexual in his old age. He presents a Christianity that does not despise the body (making the simple point that in Christianity God came to the earth in a body) and that seeks to use the body for God's purpose in humility and love. In fact, Wills presents Augustine as correcting the anti-physical bias of pagan ascetics of his day.

The texts I was interested in for my purposes were the Confessions("Testimony") and City of God. The first text is referred to repeatedly in the first half or so of the book and forms the basis for Wills' discussion of Augustine's life, conversion, and theology. The second book is summarized briefly late in the book, and I found it useful. Again, Wills argues agains an other-worldy interpretation of the City of God and finds Augustine willing to bring the City to earth in a world believers share with nonbelievers through an early form of toleration, through love, and through common purpose.

There is a good, if necesarily brief, description in the book of the closing days of the Roman Empire. This is in itself worth reading and I had known little about it.

I think somebody coming to Augustine for the first time could benefit from the book and be encouraged to think and learn more. I found it useful. I think Penguin is to be commended for its biographical series, making important lives accessible to modern readers in brief, but not superficial texts.

This is a maddening book, so full of promise it never really delivers on. Yet I've read it twice, something I don't usually do. Though some might argue, the subject is an important one: the mythic stature of John Wayne as American hero. Given his unparalleled popularity over the years, Wayne's elevation poses some serious questions. Namely, how did this fame come about, and what does the elevation of a cowboy actor to national icon reveal about ourselves. Understanding this revered status should at least tell us something about the mind-set of American men, if not women (Wayne has never been as popular with the latter as with the former, Wills observes). I think it helps to get at the way Wills presents the Wayne phenomenon to target three levels.

First, there is Wayne the person, the man. Wills doesn't devote much space to this level, though the book's subtitle, i.e. "The Politics of Celebrity", might suggest otherwise. Very little is presented of Wayne's personal life or controversial political stances. Most of what is presented are efforts to either debunk popular fictions from the early years, or to pass along opinions of others, which about the man are usually unflattering, (Ford's disapproval of Wayne's lack of war service). Clearly the author believes Wayne's mythic status comes from the screen and not from the private individual.

The second level is Wayne the actor, the commanding screen presence. Despite many insights along the way, Wills falters badly by spending way too much time on seemingly irrelevant details of John Ford's personality and film style, many of which (the diagrams of seating arrangements in "Stagecoach", for example), shed no light on Wayne the actor. Wills' s preoccupation with Ford to the exclusion of Wayne is a serious defect, which may imply that the author found Ford the more compelling of the two, and could not restrain himself. Yet it is not Ford who is enshrined in the national consciousness, it is Wayne.

The third level is the most important: Wayne the mythic figure, the mirror in which we catch our own reflection. Here Wills both succeeds and fails. He succeeds by linking the Wayne figure with some of our most enduring national myths: unbounded western horizons, uncorrupted primitive, Jeffersonian ideal. But here in the book's last chapter, which should bring together the preceding 300 pages but which is only 12 pages long, there is no real synthesis of what has gone before. There is no effort at showing how, despite the many pages given over to him, Ford' romanticized vision of the Old West shapes the Wayne myth, or how that same vision embodies enduring national myths, or how to a lesser degree Hawk's vision taps into those same legends through the Wayne figure. In short, Wills fails at this crucial third stage to adequately fill in the blanks between Wayne the actor and Wayne the myth.

I get the feeling the author intended a deeper work than is there in the result, but instead got sidetracked on underdeveloped details that end up shedding little light on the Wayne phenomenon. Too bad, because there is an important project still unfulfilled. Certainly Wills has the skills to bring it off. I only wish he had.

The idea for this book as outlined in the introduction is intriguing. Garry Wills attempts to write a 'biography of an idea', how John Wayne's on screen persona was fabricated over the years and how it differed from his real life character. I think this objective however is only partially achieved.
Wayne in real life differed dramatically from how he was presented on screen (should this be surprising? He was after all an actor, and a good one in my opinion). Mention is made of his dislike for horse riding, his preference for suits over jeans and his efforts to stay out of the military during World War II, all of which were in marked contrast to his movie roles.
However in neglecting to include much detail on his life off the screen, we are forced to assume these dramatic contrasts between fiction and reality existed, without much in the way of illustration. Wills includes an anecdote from the filming of "They Were Expendable" in 1945, regarding Wayne's humiliation on the set by John Ford over his failure to serve in the military during WWII. A few years later Wayne filmed "The Sands of Iwo Jima", which essentially was a Cold War rallying call to arms, made with the approval of the US military. Did Wayne's war record therefore lead to any embarrassment or controversy over this film? The author doesn't discuss this so we don't know.
Much of the book is taken up with more general discussions on the plot and characterisations in Wayne's more important films, and contains nearly as much discourse on John Ford than anyone else. Granted this is intended to show how directors such as Ford, Raoul Walsh and Howard Hawks developed his on screen persona, however the problem is that we are always not given enough insight into the actual Wayne.
In fairness, this book should still please Wayne fans, and if anything it contains interesting detail on directors such as Ford, Walsh etc. Personally however, I think it would probably be more worthwhile reading a conventional biography of John Wayne, rather than looking at him obliquely through this book.

Heard the taped version of John Wayne's America by Gary Wills . . . this was not a typical biography . . . it gave some background information on Wayne, but most of the emphasis was about how his life acquired a larger political meaning . . . the author effectively traced this, using Wayne's appearance as a young, individualistic cowbody hero (Stagecoach) to middle-aged authority figure weighed down with responsibility (Sergeant Stryker) to cool, determined patriot in the midst of cold war danger (Davey Crockett) to elderly lone survivor of past heroic time (True Grit) . . . this book helps explain why John Wayne remains one of our most popular American heroes--even after his death . . . I know look forward to revisiting some of "The Duke's" movies, but will now view them in a somewhat different context.

I'm afraid "elventh" has it correct. This book is a great study of a specific slice of art history. I read everything Wills writes and pass along his writings to everyone I know, but not this one. For those with the patience and background, (I lack the background, but after reading it I lack less) however, it is fully worth the time.

This book provides some interesting artistic and historic insights to lovers of Venice, but it is a difficult "read" and is often strained in its interpretations and conclusions. It also presumes a fairly advanced knowledge of Venetian art and history. In addition, there are various out-and-out errors: For example, on pg. 19, the Italian word "fondaco" is wrong-- it should be "fondamento"; on pg. 21, the saint identified as Stephen is actually Sebastian; on pg. 264, St. Sebastian's date, stated unequivocally to be 4th century A.D., could just as well have been 3rd century, since sources differ on the point. I would have expected a higher degree of accuracy from this author.

An extraordinary book! History, religion, art, political theory all blended together. I pulled out all my other books and travel guides from Venice and was bouncing back and forth studying art and architecture from a whole new point of view. Read this book before you visit Venice and take it with you as a whole new kind of guide.

The Venice Chamber of Commerce ought to be happy, I am planning my next trip now.

Garry -- Please do this for 5 other great cities. How about Amsterdam? Paris?

This book deviates from being a political biography to find excuses to blame Reagan on various things. The author's logic is often flawed, where he draws conclusions from insufficient information. For example, the author reports various economic conditions from the 80's and erroneously concludes that they were Reagan's fault. Those who want answered questions concerning the cause of the recession (a main reason why I bought the book) are left wondering. Yet, the author makes his (uneducated, in my humble opinion) viewpoint clear when he attributes Carter's "stagflation" to "bad breaks, no doubt," and sites Clinton's tax bracket system as an "accomplishment" for which he receives "little credit. . .The Reagan legacy was still at work." Obviously, these viewpoints are biased since the author gives no explanation as to why this is the case. Some readers may trust the author merely because his words are in print. The book's entire title is Reagan's America, Innocents at Home. I would submit that the people accepting the biased, subjective opinions of this book as facts are the innocents at home to which the author refers.

This is a very valuable effort of outlining the personality of one man as well as the tidings he symbolized and which brought us such ominous phenomena as trickle down economics, the moral majority and catoon politicians of easy hilarity. At times a bit dry and lengthy and overly scholarly about trifles it still educates the lay reader about what forces motivated the ever smiling knucklehead antics of a B movie actor and, more scarily so, how his influence still shapes political discourse and rewards empty suits of lowkey affability to determine what's acceptable and patriotic.

Wills captures both the man and the eras he inhabited in prose that sometimes approaches poetry. There are fascinating historical tidbits, insights a-plenty, funny jokes ("war movies are hell"), and some breathtaking chapter finales. This guy can write.

And he can indict. Wills stalks Reagan (and his real subject, Reagan's America) through each stage of his life, exposing the guilt under the glitter. Wills is a consumate hanging judge here, as in his other treatises on presidents Kennedy and Nixon.

Don't be fooled, however -- it's not Reagan he's hanging.

"Papal Sin" is a very serious and challenging book. It's not light bedtime reading. The book is concerned with "misdeeds" of various Popes over the centuries. Many of these transgressions will be understood only by those well versed in theology or the inner workings of the Catholic Church. Far more significant, and easier to digest, are the reports of how Pope Pius IX declared Papal Infallibility or Paul VI condemned birth control, both over the strenuous objections of many bishops. Niether of these acts was based on scripture, nor are the bans on a married clergy or a female clergy. We learn that Saints Peter and Paul were married and many early disciples were female. In short, the Catholic Church is painted as an authoritarian, top down, selfish, Rome-centered, self-perpetuating hierarchy. The "rules" are whatever the current Pope proclaims them, whether or not they are based on scripture or even natural law. If one is a card carrying Catholic, it gets worse! The author takes the reader into the writings of Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, Lord Acton and Cardinal Newman. He proceeds to delve into the considerations of an increasingly gay clergy (no surprise here!) and even questions the amount of devotion to the Virgin Mary! Even SHE cannot hide from Mr. Wills' pen. The end result is an often foggy story that can easily lose one who attempts to follow word for word.A "cafeteria" approach however, will be richly rewarding to the selective ones who take what they can.This lapsed Catholic got a refresher course as to just why he is that way- and likely to remain so. Devout Cathlics will be furious- and relish picking the chapters apart. Theology majors will have a field day. For these 2 categories, a 5 star rating is warranted. Give Mr. Wills credit, he has included something for everyone within the slowly turning pages of "Papal Sin".

Garry Wills has come along ways since he wrote a review of my book, "The Human Church," in 1966, in which he dismissed my appeal for a democratic reform of the Catholic church. A lot has happened since then. For one thing, there has been a flood of scholarship covering the details of church history, the life of Jesus, and the early Christian church. A careful historian and a practicing Catholic, Wills ponders the widening gaps between official church teachings and the historical record.

He writes: "Truth is a modern virtue in the sense that it took on new urgency in the last century. That period saw the birth of human history as a scientific discipline, the professionalization of inquiry, the secularization of truth-seeking institutions like the university.... To profess a dedication to such standards and yet to deploy evasions and distortions and cover-ups is to be self-condemned, even in the world's eyes, to say nothing of higher calls to truthfulness." Wills centers his work on the mischief created by Pius IX who, in reaction to the loss of the papal states to Italy in 1870, set about to centralize and solidify the Pope's authority. In 1870, he strong-armed the bishops at the Vatican II council in Rome to declare the Pope infallible. This act, according to Wills, set up an official "structure of deceit" that characterizes the modern church, which sacrifices truth for the pretense of infallibility. Wills' best writing is the description of Vatican II and the efforts of Lord Acton and John Henry Newman in leading the opposition to the declaration. While Wills is correct in making the papacy accountable to historians, he neglects the need to make it politically accountable to the church. He overlooks Lord Actons statement, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The problems with the papacy did not begin with Pius IX, but with ancient, monarchial structures that choke off the message of Jesus. In calling for truth from the papacy, Wills also overlooks the damage and horror caused by its belief in absolute truth. Wills knows well the complex, delicate, and shifting nature of truth (which he discusses in his chapter on Newman). The philosophical belief in absolute truth is perhaps Catholicism's greatest error, for which it has yet to be made accountable.

Impeccable scholarship and brisk, concise prose are the drawing cards of Garry Wills' new book. In the blink of an eye, Mr Wills dissects several of the more onerous fantasies of the modern papacy. In this post-Christian age, Mr. Wills takes up the case for papal reform more effectively than did the protestant savants in the ages of faith. The sections on the Church's relations with Jews, on pedophile priests and their enabling heirarchies, and on birth control are especially telling. It takes a Catholic to write a book this clear-headed about the papacy. Garry Wills' Catholicism gives him not only the authority, but indeed the courage, to make a substantive contribution to the discussion of these matters moral, doctrinal, and, finally, human. And substance is indeed the outcome of Mr. Wills' frontal assault on the deceitful structures of the modern papacy. Especially interesting is the conclusive parallel drawn between the mindset of Pius IX and that of John Paul II. Indeed, in this age of the puzzling popular 'canonisation' of the living pope, it is good to be reminded of the face behind the mask. Wills' continual references to the writings of Raymond Brown, a theologian from the little leagues, is annoying at times, but he uses the particular references chosen to good effect in making his own arguments. Catholics should be proud to have such thoughtfulness as that displayed by Garry Wills working on their behalf. Unfortunately, viewing some of the reviews on this page, it sadly seems still true that nothing confounds the Catholic, especially the American Catholic, like a good romp at the papacy. Nevertheless, this is an important book, and one I suspect that will more than stand the test of time. Highest recommendation!

Garry Wills, prolific commentator on things political, cultural, and religious, writes again. The only problem is, it takes about 250 pages for the reader to get to Mr. Wills' answer to the question why he remains in the Catholic Church if he has so many quarrels with the hierarchy, the papacy, and their pronouncements on various points of doctrine.

The book is divided into three parts. In the first part, Wills talks about growing up Catholic, his days in the seminary and the Jesuit order, how and why he left the Jesuit order, his work for the National Review and his lifelong infatuation with the 19th-20th century religious writer and journalist, G.K. Chesterton.

The second part is a dreary catalogue of depredations, deceits, abuses of power, and miscues by various popes through the millenia. Wills argues that the papacy in its modern form is a recent invention and that it has evolved several times through different forms. It goes without saying that he thinks papal infallibility has got to go. The second part seems to be a reprise of his earlier book, "Papal Sin."

The third part of the book actually gets around to Wills finally, at long last, answering the question why he remains a Catholic. This fifty page portion of the book is actually quite eloquent and thoughtful and could stand on its own as a book or as a magazine article. Wills's meditation on why he remains in the Church is organized around the clauses of the Apostle's Creed, which he treats with great insight.

I subtract 2 stars because of the redundant material and the interminable delay in getting to the answer to the question. I give 3 stars because the last section is quite good.

There certainly seems to be a lot of polarization in the readers' responses. I cannot believe the vitriol some folks lob at the author. Serious lack of charity involved, it seems to me. I found the book to be interesting and definitely a worthwhile examination of why, with all its faults, the Catholic Church still provides a spiritual home for the author. I trust folks who believe it is possible to question and doubt and still affirm faith. For those who are afraid ever to examine or doubt, one wonders what it is they fear. . . perhaps their faith isn't as strong as they believe. But this author is not afraid. And he is a good catholic.

The prolific historian offers a timely confession of faith and an apology in the true sense of the term. Wills (James Madison, p. 244, etc.) is not just any Catholic: he studied for the priesthood, has worked in Jesuit and papal archives, and has written many books on moral matters and the intersection of politics and religion. For having dared question the Church's positions on matters of doctrine great and small, he has been nearly stripped of his membership as one of the faithful. "I am not a special case," he writes, "but in many ways a typical one." In light of all this, asked why he chooses to remain a Catholic, Wills answers with quiet dignity, "because of the creed." By this he means the creed offered by Christ in the Lord's Prayer (ever the trained classicist, he offers a new translation that hugs closely to the original Greek) and by the apostles, who pledged faith in "the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting." Would that it were all so simple. Arguing against generations of doctrine on such matters as women's unsuitability for the priesthood, papal infallibility, and "peripheral stances taken by church authorities, some of which are not only non-binding but scandalous and morally repulsive," the author takes a long tour through Catholic history, separating the words of Jesus, Peter, and Paul from their later representatives and, critics might object, casting aside whatever does not suit him in search of a more user-friendly brand of Catholicism. Though immensely learned and capable of holding his own in any argument, Wills also calls on some heavy-hitters for backup, including English writer G.K. Chesterton (a favorite of clerical conservatives), saintly socialist Dorothy Day, and the brilliant Thomas Aquinas. Deserves-and will almost certainly find-a wide readership while garnering for Wills both praise as a principled oppositionist and condemnation as a heretic.

I have a word for Crissypoo in So. California, obviously you ARE NOT a Christian Scientist, and Know nothing about it! Also ..UMMM.... where is YOUR proof that Mark Twain's Daughter was not healed by Mary Baker Eddy? Really now before you start making assumptions why DONT YOU DO SOME MORE RESEARCH! The one reviewer with the lengthy review gives some very good starters for research! Also look further in to Mark Twains writings 12 years after his bashing of Mary Baker Eddy where he writes HIMSELF about the healing of his daughter by Mary Baker Eddy!

Mark Twain knew a fraud when he saw one, so when Mary Baker Eddy came down the pike he sharpened his pencil and delivered this spot-on literary broadside that tore off the benevolent façade of this dangerous cult. This book will open the eyes of anyone flirting with the spiritual cancer known as Christian Science. It will encourage those who have grown up in suffocating C. S. families to question a dogma that promotes an absurd and harmful vision of reality. Rather than leading one to truth, Christian Science insists on absolute denial of reality. This is a pseudo-religion that has literally killed many thousands of its hapless adherents by brainwashing them into avoiding medical help when they needed it. Save yourself--read Mark Twain's diatribe on this perverted philosophy.

The first part of Mark Tawin's work on "Christian 'Science'" is very funny; he shows through parody and wit just how ignorant, stupid, superstitious, and gullible human beings can be. The second part is much more serious: Twain shows how the sinister organization came into existance, and remarks upon Eddy's criminal and abusive acts when starting the business, as well as mentions some of the plagerism she committed.

This is by far one of the best books about how the "Christian 'Science'" organization came to exist. While the book is a classic, it is also timeless.

If you are interested in Eddy or "Christian 'Science,'" this is the single best source for you to explore. I recomend this book HIGHLY!

Once again, people are sharply divided on a book that can be seen to be primarily about history, or about current politics. Sometimes this is inevitable, sometimes it is misguided. Here, it hinges on whether Wills has his history right, and is drawing the correct conclusions about current events from this history. The very simple answer to this is that Wills' view of the intent of the Founders is shared by few professional historians. It is clear that the left-leaning Wills sought to justify government activism and counter appeals to Constitutional restraint in writing this book. That is not an attack; it is simply obvious, period. That in itself does not make this a bad book. What does is that Wills is stretching historical interpretation well past the breaking point in general, and to the point of embarassment on many occasions. Had he not gone on from there to press home matters relating to modern-day politics, this could have been considered a work of scholarship, albeit a poor one. It isn't, and even those who agree with Wills don't treat it that way. Do they, honestly? This is a polemic, dressed up as history by a normally respected author. Look at it this way: if someone really wants to learn what the Founders intended, and what might be learned from it and applied to our current political framework, why wouldn't that person read Bailyn or Wood or "Novus Ordo Seclorum" or some other respected work that isn't the least bit interested in today's politics, and then just draw one's own conclusions?

When Garry Wills closes his book with the idea that government is a necessary good, some reviewers seem to have made the assumption that he is claiming then, that bigger goverment necessarily yields greater good. Nowhere does he make such a claim. In fact, his focus is not the scope of government or, for the most part, specifics of government. His main focus is two-fold: both the fact that anti-government sentiment has long been present in our nation, and the way in which its proponents have tried to see that sentiment written into our founding documents. His harsh words are not for those who are skeptical of the government but for those intellectualls who he feels have been sloppy in their attempts to establish a constitutional basis for such skepticism. If we were to assume that Wills's reading of the Second Amendment is the correct one, does that mean that it is the wise thing to ban citizens from owning fire-arms? Not necessarily. Is the belief that skepticism was not written into the Constitution a condemnation of skepticism? Certainly not. Though I may disagree with some of Mr. Wills ideas (though not generally with those found in this book,) he is certainly not a state-ist, a Hitler apologist, or a knee-jerk Liberal. The reviews that his book has received certainly show, though, that he has found a political nerve and that we often do look to the founding documents as justification for strongly held beliefs.

Garry Wills has written a book that will probably come as close to his book on Catholicism for upsetting many readers and, hopefully, enlightening many more. A Necessary Evil (A History of American Distrust of Government) is a book that begins slow but picks up glorious momentum as it glides along. The author has truly created an all-encompassing look at the factors creating and the results stemming from anti-governmentalism that sometimes feels a little too broad-ranging in its topics but interesting enough through of all this added weight. It should make the reader look at their attitudes a little closer as well as challenging many of the assumptions easily held concerning icons such as Jefferson, Madison (particularly fascinating) and Thoreau, to name but a few of the sacred cows served for lunch in this book. The author is most fervent and interesting when attacking fellow academics who hold and ennoble many of the anti-governmental views thoroughly taken apart in this book. The ending is great and potently timely with its assailing government for its secrecy. A wonderful book that should get people talking.

This book is a mess. The thesis presented in the introduction is a rambling essay on the importance of followers and historical forces in leadership, which might leave the reader less informed about leadership than before he/she read it. What's worse is that the intro has nothing at all to do with the rest of the book (which is marginal in it's own right). The case studies are way too short and are made even less informative by Wills habit of not even mentioning the leader until five or six pages of nonsense. My overall feeling of this book is that it was poorly researched and badly written. I wonder (in all seriousness) whether Wills knows anything at all about some of the people he writes about. Skip this one. I suggest Lincoln on Leadership instead: it provides the rudiments of leadership with clear, well researched examples.

Good concept to discuss different types of leadership with good and bad examples. However, most of the work seems to be on the positive examples with the anti-types being included as an afterthought. Nearly all chapters are weak developments of leadership style with the notable exception being the one on Harriet Tubman. Additionally, both the types of leadership styles discussed and the people chosen to represent them appear to fit the author's preferences rather than true representations of leadership styles and leaders. This book was an easy read and parts were even enjoyable but the content was not as substantive as I had hoped.

The best recommendation that I can make is to check this one out of a library instead of purchasing it.

(review written by a life-long student of leadership with a library full of leadership texts.)

Wills has a keen sense of the importance of followers to leadership. In the introduction to the book he states plainly "The leader most needs followers". He goes on to explain that in reality followers "have a say" in what they are led toward! The theme of Certain Trumpets is that a successful leader doesn't just trumpet or sound their own certain message, but instead they sound a specific call to others capable of following. He believes that leaders need to understand their followers more than followers need to understand them! What is Garry Wills basic definition of a leader? "One who mobilizes others toward a goal shared by the leader and followers". In other words, coercion of others is not leadership, it is just power.

With this introduction in mind the rest of the book consists of Wills discussion of individuals who have possessed leadership in various ways. The author believes that different leaders should be considered notable because of their own goals rather than their personalities, which is the most common perspective. As a result of this perspective, Wills does not treat leadership as a single thing, but mentions sixteen various kinds of leadership within the book. He also goes on to discuss various subdivisions within the sixteen kind's. Certain Trumpets attempts to define these distinctive types of leadership by using examples that range from Franklin Roosevelt (Electoral Leadership) to Dorothy Day (Saintly Leadership). To make this exploration interesting, and to provoke thought, he also provides an antitype character in contrast to each distinctive type of leader presented. It is Wills hope to exemplify the individual's characteristics by providing this contrast. Wills doesn't think we lack leaders today, but sufficient followers. He refers to this as the "real problem with leadership". Certain Trumpets is easy to read, stimulating and creative enough to look at leadership from a different lens.