Yes, the narration was a plus to the story.
It's hard to say as it was somewhat contemporary, thus one feels like you were around at the time. On the other hand we got wonderful insights on a man who functioned in this world we think we know. You can't compare it to a biography of say Churchill; more like Howard Hughes. (Who was that, Irving?0
Don't recall, but this was great.
What moved me? It's not that sort of narrative. You feel like you are getting an inside look at a very complicated man and his relationships with his family, friends and his own conscious. I could not wait to get back to it.
Nassau did a lot of homework and it shows. He is an excellent writer. The subtlety used to draw out very difficult topics and subjects gives it credibility. You find yourself impatiently waiting to get to the next stage of his life.
The narrator did a masterful job and added to the enjoyment of this book.
This book lacked insight into the Court and how they make decisions. (What I expected I guess.)
It was an elementary history of the Court and offered little new insights to the history. I had expected much more out of Justice O'Connor, someone I admire greatly.
Justice O'Connor narrates the book and may have been the most compelling aspect of the enterprise. It seems her strength and toughness come through from her "style" of speaking.
Hard to say what you'd leave in.
I don't believe she will get a second chance nor do I believe she had any desire to expose the inner most views on the Court or individual justices. I was not looking for a "tell all" or "snarky" details of personal habits. Rather, I felt short changed on insights of how the Court worked, decision making process or application of legal "logic".
How about showing two opposing interpretations of the Constitution and how an attempt to reconcile may have happened. For example, is Gay marriage equal protection? If not, why not. All in the context of the Constitution.
She could have left us with a better understanding of how reasonable people could disagree or whether predisposition of ideas and concepts cannot be changed.
That did not happen; it was "paint by numbers" sadly.
Report Inappropriate Content