The Original Argument: The Federalists' Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century
Author:
Genre: Nonfiction
Book Type: Paperback
Author:
Genre: Nonfiction
Book Type: Paperback
I think this book will be very helpful, for those who don't understand these important documents, or worse yet, have never read them. Personally I do understand the writing in the Federalist Papers, so the commentary in the book not just kind of gets in my way. It is really simplistic and gets on my nerves. But considering the kind of audience it is aiming for, I should not be surprised.
The goal of this book was to translate the Federalist Papers as a whole to modern English, with the intent to make them more accessible and easier to comprehend. On the surface this book seemed like such a great idea, so I was very disappointed that it was not so. The problem isn't the modern translations of the Federalist papers, but rather the commentary that precedes each of the 33 papers chosen for this book. Written by Glenn Beck and his associates, and not I assume, by Joshua Charles, who did the translations. The all too obvious partisan projections by Beck about the meaning of the texts made me wonder why just these 33 chapters were chosen. I felt like I was being manipulated rather than educated.
And lastly the book was just terrible to read. TERRIBLE. I was hopping that Beck would turn the introduction of each Federalist paper with interesting dip into history. Something to help the reader to keep focused. Instead he plowed on. The translated papers are not exactly easy to read. But they are interesting on their own. But Beck kills them: It goes something like this: This is a hammer, hammer is for nails. Federalist papers are making the case for unification, they helped to unite the nation, printed for unity and betterment, because federalism is the answer for freedom. Freedom is the base of unity, unity is Federalisms best friend. Federalism is the original argument... Yaaaawn. How can you read the translated papers, which are quite interesting, though really difficult when you get into "I want to toss the book out of the window" mood?
The goal of this book was to translate the Federalist Papers as a whole to modern English, with the intent to make them more accessible and easier to comprehend. On the surface this book seemed like such a great idea, so I was very disappointed that it was not so. The problem isn't the modern translations of the Federalist papers, but rather the commentary that precedes each of the 33 papers chosen for this book. Written by Glenn Beck and his associates, and not I assume, by Joshua Charles, who did the translations. The all too obvious partisan projections by Beck about the meaning of the texts made me wonder why just these 33 chapters were chosen. I felt like I was being manipulated rather than educated.
And lastly the book was just terrible to read. TERRIBLE. I was hopping that Beck would turn the introduction of each Federalist paper with interesting dip into history. Something to help the reader to keep focused. Instead he plowed on. The translated papers are not exactly easy to read. But they are interesting on their own. But Beck kills them: It goes something like this: This is a hammer, hammer is for nails. Federalist papers are making the case for unification, they helped to unite the nation, printed for unity and betterment, because federalism is the answer for freedom. Freedom is the base of unity, unity is Federalisms best friend. Federalism is the original argument... Yaaaawn. How can you read the translated papers, which are quite interesting, though really difficult when you get into "I want to toss the book out of the window" mood?
Back to all reviews by this member
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
