Rating: 
Summary: Difficult but interesting
Review: This is not incredibly light reading but Rakove's points are important. While many would have us believe that the original meanings of the Constitution can be grasped by reviewing the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other important documents/statements, alas, it is not so easy. The Founders meant different things at different times and had different reasons for stating what they did at any given time. Does this mean that, because they said so many things, they actually meant nothing or anything? Of course not, however, it is not an easy task to understand them on the face of the written words - without also appreciating time, context, audience, etc. Oh well, so it goes.
Rating:
Summary: Thorough scholarly analysis, but a challenging read
Review: Upon finishing Rakove's work, I was reminded of Albert Einstein's remark, "Don't worry about your problems with mathetmatics; I can assure you that mine are far greater." Rakove is a brilliant historian, and his book "Original Meanings" is full of crucial insight which, if widely conveyed, would fundamentally change our constitutional debate. After reading Rakove's book, I can never use the term "Founding Fathers" in the popular sense. These men emerge from Rakove's pages as nervous, uncertain, quarrelsome; far from the mythic figures we have created in high school textbooks. Rakove discusses issues that were highly relevant to the Framers but have been essentially lost to history, and he discusses them well and thoroughly. I studied the Constitution for three years in law school, and Rakove brought a wealth of new material to my eyes.Unfortunately, Rakove seems to have written this book for my professors, not for me. This is not to say that he does not write well. For his audience, his writing is extraordinary, but his chosen audience is assuredly not a broad one. His diction often left me casting about for my dictionary. I had one professor who would never use a plain Engish phrase when an obscure Latin phrase would do half as well. Rakove isn't in his class, but only because he shuns Latin. Perhaps I am only indicating my own ignorance, but I don't come across the word "abjure" every day, and Rakove included dozens of such speed bumps in his narrative. Rakove's word choice keeps "Original Meanings" out of the realm of remarkable books, but his insight, attention to detail, and willingness to challenge the myths of original intent will force every constitutional scholar to add this text to his or her library.
Rating: 
Summary: Intelligent, but pedantic
Review: While this book offers a wealth of information about the birth of the Constitution, I found Rakove's writing style to be prohibitively pedantic. He repeats himself and has an annoying habit of posing rhetorical questions to which he offers us no possible solutions. I had to read this book for a Constitutional History class, and although I understand why my professor assigned it, I think Rakove could have written this book in 200 pages, rather than 450. I guess I might as well come out and say it. Its boring. The subject matter is fascinating, but the way Rakove presents his thesis lacks something to be desired....
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent, but pedantic
Review: While this book offers a wealth of information about the birth of the Constitution, I found Rakove's writing style to be prohibitively pedantic. He repeats himself and has an annoying habit of posing rhetorical questions to which he offers us no possible solutions. I had to read this book for a Constitutional History class, and although I understand why my professor assigned it, I think Rakove could have written this book in 200 pages, rather than 450. I guess I might as well come out and say it. Its boring. The subject matter is fascinating, but the way Rakove presents his thesis lacks something to be desired....
|
