I have read 60% of Bob Woodward's book on Trump (just got it yesterday) and I must say I am not all that impressed. The book is not very well-written, it seems slap-dash, and I don't think it makes Trumpie look particularly bad.
On the first point, I have read "All the President's Men" (WoodStein) of course. I have read "Bush at War" (Woodward alone). Bob Woodward is a good writer! "Fear" does not have the Woodwardian writing quality.
Maybe because: Woodward has an "Author's Personal Note" on its own separate page before the beginning. "A heartfelt thanks..." it begins, "Like a dedication," I thought, "to Evelyn M. Duffy, my assistant on five books..."
But then: "Evelyn immediately grasped..."
"Evelyn knew this was history..."
"WE had to get as much as possible..."
"WE researched, interviewed, transcribed and rewrote..."
"SHE made sure we built the story around specific scenes with specific dates..."
"EVELYN maintains a remarkable work ethic..."
"Evelyn...serving as a FULL COLLABORATOR and in the spirit--and with the level of effort--OF A COAUTHOR."
Those are his own words: "full collaborator," "coauthor."
Woodward explains that "When I have attributed exact quotations, thoughts or conclusions to the participants," you're expecting "they appear between quotation marks," right? But there are strangely written, confusing portions like this:
Mindful of the Iraq "mistake," Brennan ultimately concluded that the CIA had not done its job. The House of Broken Toys had dodged its responsibilities, insisting, "You need troops! You need troops!" Well,that was not the CIA's job.
As I understand that segment none of the words in quotes are Brennan's. I don't think "mistake" is Brennan's word. I have looked through every entry for Brennan in the index and don't see it. Sometimes quotation marks are used as the author's, Woodward's, questioning of the the characterization, like Woodward did not really think the CIA had made a mistake with Iraq wmd intel. And "You need troops! You need troops!", that is the House of Broken Toys (i.e. Iraqi Operations Group) speaking there, is it not? Following the rules of grammar the sentence begins "The House of Broken Toys" (subject) "insisting" (verb), quote (object). You don't put something in quotation marks that is attributable to a group, right? The House of Broken Toys did not say "You need troops! You need troops!"
On the second (slap-dash) point: the book jumps from scene-to-scene, it appears to be rigidly chronological, i.e. Trump would have multiple things going on in a given day, "Fear" appears to me to present them as they came up on that day, so the reader is reading about Trump going ballistic about the Russian investigation and then something else, same chapter, the "transition" noted only by quadruple spacing. There is no flow. It reads like a diary. There is no analysis, no thought by the author(s), just a stringing together of incidents and quotations from participants. The chapters are not named. It's just 1-42.
On the third point, and this is just while it is fresh in my memory, "Note to Readers:"
Interviews for this book...blah blah blah.
President Trump declined to be interviewed for this book.
"Declined": That is a positive, action verb, right? Like, "I declined to get married a third time," right? I was made an offer and I declined. That is not what happened with "Fear"! Woodward taped the conversation, Trump called him after the book had gone to print. Trump said he always would talk to Woodward, that Woodward knew that, that he had spoken to Woodward during the campaign, and that nobody had told him that Woodward wanted to interview him for the book. Woodward rejoined that he had had a lunch with Kellyanne Conway and had asked her and she had never gotten back to him; Trump said, "Did you call my office? I have an office, you know?", Woodward said he had not. Woodward said he had mentioned it to Lindsey Graham, "Didn't Senator Graham tell you?", Trump admitted that Graham had mentioned it to him; Trump then called for Conway to come into the room (presumably the Oval Office) and asked her, with Woodward right on the phone, if Woodward had told her that he wanted to speak to Trump for the book and Conway acknowledged that Woodward had at the luncheon but had not told Trump directly because she thought it best to follow the process or chain-of-command, meaning that she thought she should tell Kelly or some other gatekeeper and not tell Trump herself.
So in that context is it carefully accurate to say that "Trump declined to be interviewed for this book"? No, it is not. "Declined" means the offer got to Trump personally and that he declined to be interviewed--the declination can go through a spokesperson but it has to be positive action and here Woodward simply did not hear back. That is inaction. It would be carefully accurate to write what Woodward said on tape: that he had asked Kellyanne Conway to mention it to Trump and had asked Lindsey Graham to mention it to Trump and that he never heard back.
On the first point, I have read "All the President's Men" (WoodStein) of course. I have read "Bush at War" (Woodward alone). Bob Woodward is a good writer! "Fear" does not have the Woodwardian writing quality.
Maybe because: Woodward has an "Author's Personal Note" on its own separate page before the beginning. "A heartfelt thanks..." it begins, "Like a dedication," I thought, "to Evelyn M. Duffy, my assistant on five books..."
But then: "Evelyn immediately grasped..."
"Evelyn knew this was history..."
"WE had to get as much as possible..."
"WE researched, interviewed, transcribed and rewrote..."
"SHE made sure we built the story around specific scenes with specific dates..."
"EVELYN maintains a remarkable work ethic..."
"Evelyn...serving as a FULL COLLABORATOR and in the spirit--and with the level of effort--OF A COAUTHOR."
Those are his own words: "full collaborator," "coauthor."
Woodward explains that "When I have attributed exact quotations, thoughts or conclusions to the participants," you're expecting "they appear between quotation marks," right? But there are strangely written, confusing portions like this:
Mindful of the Iraq "mistake," Brennan ultimately concluded that the CIA had not done its job. The House of Broken Toys had dodged its responsibilities, insisting, "You need troops! You need troops!" Well,that was not the CIA's job.
As I understand that segment none of the words in quotes are Brennan's. I don't think "mistake" is Brennan's word. I have looked through every entry for Brennan in the index and don't see it. Sometimes quotation marks are used as the author's, Woodward's, questioning of the the characterization, like Woodward did not really think the CIA had made a mistake with Iraq wmd intel. And "You need troops! You need troops!", that is the House of Broken Toys (i.e. Iraqi Operations Group) speaking there, is it not? Following the rules of grammar the sentence begins "The House of Broken Toys" (subject) "insisting" (verb), quote (object). You don't put something in quotation marks that is attributable to a group, right? The House of Broken Toys did not say "You need troops! You need troops!"
On the second (slap-dash) point: the book jumps from scene-to-scene, it appears to be rigidly chronological, i.e. Trump would have multiple things going on in a given day, "Fear" appears to me to present them as they came up on that day, so the reader is reading about Trump going ballistic about the Russian investigation and then something else, same chapter, the "transition" noted only by quadruple spacing. There is no flow. It reads like a diary. There is no analysis, no thought by the author(s), just a stringing together of incidents and quotations from participants. The chapters are not named. It's just 1-42.
On the third point, and this is just while it is fresh in my memory, "Note to Readers:"
Interviews for this book...blah blah blah.
President Trump declined to be interviewed for this book.
"Declined": That is a positive, action verb, right? Like, "I declined to get married a third time," right? I was made an offer and I declined. That is not what happened with "Fear"! Woodward taped the conversation, Trump called him after the book had gone to print. Trump said he always would talk to Woodward, that Woodward knew that, that he had spoken to Woodward during the campaign, and that nobody had told him that Woodward wanted to interview him for the book. Woodward rejoined that he had had a lunch with Kellyanne Conway and had asked her and she had never gotten back to him; Trump said, "Did you call my office? I have an office, you know?", Woodward said he had not. Woodward said he had mentioned it to Lindsey Graham, "Didn't Senator Graham tell you?", Trump admitted that Graham had mentioned it to him; Trump then called for Conway to come into the room (presumably the Oval Office) and asked her, with Woodward right on the phone, if Woodward had told her that he wanted to speak to Trump for the book and Conway acknowledged that Woodward had at the luncheon but had not told Trump directly because she thought it best to follow the process or chain-of-command, meaning that she thought she should tell Kelly or some other gatekeeper and not tell Trump herself.
So in that context is it carefully accurate to say that "Trump declined to be interviewed for this book"? No, it is not. "Declined" means the offer got to Trump personally and that he declined to be interviewed--the declination can go through a spokesperson but it has to be positive action and here Woodward simply did not hear back. That is inaction. It would be carefully accurate to write what Woodward said on tape: that he had asked Kellyanne Conway to mention it to Trump and had asked Lindsey Graham to mention it to Trump and that he never heard back.