Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.99 AVERAGE
3.99 AVERAGE
One of the best of Vidal's Narratives of Empire (an after the fact overarching series title on his part). It's very zesty and youthful in tone: the mass mobements and shifts in mass psychology that reached their height coming out of the1960s clearly had an impact on him. It is superior to the hard-slog novels (for me) 1876 and Lincoln. Burr's comparative brevity is a strength.
A stunning novel, in which Vidal uses the cannily chosen Aaron Burr as a hatchet to take apart the founding fathers and our various myths about them and show how all their human frailties are embedded in the nation and its direction. Burr, and his Boswell, Charles Schuyler, are an impeccably drawn pair of unreliable narrators who take us down the river of the creation of the United States and show us nooks and crannies in it we never even suspected.
I don't know a whole lot about American history of this time period (though I saw Hamilton), but this seems to be a good portrait at least of many of the characters and events in America from the time of the revolution through the first several decades of the 19th century. Vidal is a really good writer, and seems to capture the characters well, and it's a bit hard to tell which of the attitudes are the authors and which are the characters. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, for example, don't come off very well in this book, to sometimes comic effect. This might be a good contrary to the Hamilton biography and musical, but it's worth remembering that this is a novel and has different needs than does a biography (though a musical has yet another set). The main thing is, it's always fun and enlightening to read Vidal.
If I could rate this 3.5 stars, I would, but not being able to do that, I’ll round up to 4 stars. “Burr” is Gore Vidal’s fictionalized history of the life of Aaron Burr (famous for his role in “Hamilton” the musical and (spoiler alert) killing the titular Alexander Hamilton in a duel).
The novel “Burr” is the first in the “Narratives of Empire” series of 7 novels diving into different periods of American history. My review of “Burr” is shaded by the fact that I had already read the 3rd novel in the series “1876” so was already familiar with some of the characters and the style. Unfortunately, reading these books out of order took away some of the pleasure and surprises found in “Burr”.
The narrator (who feels like the main character throughout) is the completely fictional Charles Schermerhorn Schuyler, a 25 year old novice when the story begins in 1833. He clerks in Aaron Burr’s law office and has inside access to the man and helps Burr record his memoirs. Throughout the novel, the story jumps back and forth between the present day (1830s) and previous history (the play-within-a-play that are Burr’s memoirs) from the Revolution, the Continental Congress, Constitutional Convention, the earliest Presidential Administrations and Congresses, and the aftermath of the famous 1804 duel.
While many of the events and passages are interesting and exciting, I was a bit put off, wondering to what extent I can trust a 25 year old to accurately record the faded memories of a 78 year old telling of events from nearly 60 years prior. I much preferred the style of “1876” with events being recorded by the 68 year old, fully-formed, Charles Schuyler in real time. All the time-jumps in “Burr” wore me out.
Because the novel features events and the man of Aaron Burr over the course of his 80 years of life, there’s a lot to pack in, and much history to cover. While I do have some base knowledge of the key events and outcomes, I think I would have enjoyed the story much more had I been more educated on voting and elections in the early days of the Republic, geography and territorial expansion in early US history, the 'Spanish Conspiracy', and Burr’s treason trial.
I enjoyed the novel for it’s humor, though I thought the 68 year old narrator in “1876” was much wittier than his 25 year old self in “Burr”. I enjoyed the excitement and surprises, though unfortunately the biggest surprise had been spoiled for me.
Lots to like, but also a lot to keep up with, and a lot to try to understand, especially as the novice narrator is trying to figure it out for himself. In the past and present: who’s on whose side? who’s betraying whom?
A good and interesting read for learning more about the early days of the country, especially Burr himself. And extra interesting to read about it during a time when we questioned whether the peaceful transition of power would occur (it was first tested in 1800 and passed, and luckily passed again in 2020) and thinking about the burning of Washington City in 1814 compared to the insurrection at the Capitol in 2021.
The novel “Burr” is the first in the “Narratives of Empire” series of 7 novels diving into different periods of American history. My review of “Burr” is shaded by the fact that I had already read the 3rd novel in the series “1876” so was already familiar with some of the characters and the style. Unfortunately, reading these books out of order took away some of the pleasure and surprises found in “Burr”.
The narrator (who feels like the main character throughout) is the completely fictional Charles Schermerhorn Schuyler, a 25 year old novice when the story begins in 1833. He clerks in Aaron Burr’s law office and has inside access to the man and helps Burr record his memoirs. Throughout the novel, the story jumps back and forth between the present day (1830s) and previous history (the play-within-a-play that are Burr’s memoirs) from the Revolution, the Continental Congress, Constitutional Convention, the earliest Presidential Administrations and Congresses, and the aftermath of the famous 1804 duel.
While many of the events and passages are interesting and exciting, I was a bit put off, wondering to what extent I can trust a 25 year old to accurately record the faded memories of a 78 year old telling of events from nearly 60 years prior. I much preferred the style of “1876” with events being recorded by the 68 year old, fully-formed, Charles Schuyler in real time. All the time-jumps in “Burr” wore me out.
Because the novel features events and the man of Aaron Burr over the course of his 80 years of life, there’s a lot to pack in, and much history to cover. While I do have some base knowledge of the key events and outcomes, I think I would have enjoyed the story much more had I been more educated on voting and elections in the early days of the Republic, geography and territorial expansion in early US history, the 'Spanish Conspiracy', and Burr’s treason trial.
I enjoyed the novel for it’s humor, though I thought the 68 year old narrator in “1876” was much wittier than his 25 year old self in “Burr”. I enjoyed the excitement and surprises, though unfortunately the biggest surprise had been spoiled for me.
Lots to like, but also a lot to keep up with, and a lot to try to understand, especially as the novice narrator is trying to figure it out for himself. In the past and present: who’s on whose side? who’s betraying whom?
A good and interesting read for learning more about the early days of the country, especially Burr himself. And extra interesting to read about it during a time when we questioned whether the peaceful transition of power would occur (it was first tested in 1800 and passed, and luckily passed again in 2020) and thinking about the burning of Washington City in 1814 compared to the insurrection at the Capitol in 2021.
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Like scandalous gossip about celebrities? This is the novel for you.
'Burr' is fiction, but I love a good story. Vidal's superbly researched novel brings Aaron Burr to life and this reader was willingly swept up into the romance of an anti-hero. 'Burr' shrewdly picks apart the myths and legends surrounding the men who founded the United States, reveling in their flaws and, despite any cries of 'disrespect!', making me admire their achievements all the more. This country was created by contentious compromise - it should never be seen as a perfect body. This book is the antidote for the hero-worship we used to see in textbooks.
Before reading the novel I had had a very limited picture of Burr's life, in fact the only thing I could have told you about him with certainty was that he had killed Hamilton in a duel. But taking it all in: his belief in the mind of his daughter, his ambitions in the west, the sheer amount of time he was given, makes his life a fascinating one, even stripped of the more colorful assertions of this novel. It makes me more interested in the time period. New York was only just losing its Dutch identity, the powers of the three branches hadn't been tested against each other yet, and before the Louisiana Purchase the country had a much different outlook. One of these days I'll have to read (actual) memoirs of the early republic to compliment the pictures given in 'Colonial American Travel Narratives'.
I'll never think of the founding fathers in the same way again.
Narratives of Empire
Next: 'Lincoln'
'Burr' is fiction, but I love a good story. Vidal's superbly researched novel brings Aaron Burr to life and this reader was willingly swept up into the romance of an anti-hero. 'Burr' shrewdly picks apart the myths and legends surrounding the men who founded the United States, reveling in their flaws and, despite any cries of 'disrespect!', making me admire their achievements all the more. This country was created by contentious compromise - it should never be seen as a perfect body. This book is the antidote for the hero-worship we used to see in textbooks.
Before reading the novel I had had a very limited picture of Burr's life, in fact the only thing I could have told you about him with certainty was that he had killed Hamilton in a duel. But taking it all in: his belief in the mind of his daughter, his ambitions in the west, the sheer amount of time he was given, makes his life a fascinating one, even stripped of the more colorful assertions of this novel. It makes me more interested in the time period. New York was only just losing its Dutch identity, the powers of the three branches hadn't been tested against each other yet, and before the Louisiana Purchase the country had a much different outlook. One of these days I'll have to read (actual) memoirs of the early republic to compliment the pictures given in 'Colonial American Travel Narratives'.
I'll never think of the founding fathers in the same way again.
Narratives of Empire
Next: 'Lincoln'
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Normally I have trouble reading historical fiction but this book has turned out to be much different. I'm not very far in but at the moment I'm loving it
Vidal does a brilliant job of bringing Burr's story to life, using and fleshing out real historical characters to ground his story in a dirty and treacherous America. The fictional narrator is sympathetic, and Vidal's wit and dry humour shine through the 19th-century style and prudish attitudes he delights in mimicking.
The novel is mostly a deconstruction of the mythical founding fathers, whom Vidal portrays as all too human, and all too political creatures. Mostly through Burr's narration, Washington is portrayed as vain, Jefferson a hypocrite, Hamilton a pompous boor, Burr a sympathetic rascal more than an amoral villain.
The frustrating, though no doubt intentional, aspect of the work is the novelization of history which injects bias and motives that non-fiction histories rarely do. It makes for a compelling story, but one is always aware that the narrator is exceedingly unreliable, which is frustrating if you want to learn history.
No doubt one can point out that no history is unbiased, but a historical fiction is more biased than most histories. It's a challenging genre that Vidal pulls off exceedingly well. I normally dislike historical fiction, but it works in Vidal's style and careful research.
All in all, the book works as a deconstruction of myths and a vivid portrayal of 19th-century life, and as a serviceable and lively history, which is probably Vidal's intent.
The novel is mostly a deconstruction of the mythical founding fathers, whom Vidal portrays as all too human, and all too political creatures. Mostly through Burr's narration, Washington is portrayed as vain, Jefferson a hypocrite, Hamilton a pompous boor, Burr a sympathetic rascal more than an amoral villain.
The frustrating, though no doubt intentional, aspect of the work is the novelization of history which injects bias and motives that non-fiction histories rarely do. It makes for a compelling story, but one is always aware that the narrator is exceedingly unreliable, which is frustrating if you want to learn history.
No doubt one can point out that no history is unbiased, but a historical fiction is more biased than most histories. It's a challenging genre that Vidal pulls off exceedingly well. I normally dislike historical fiction, but it works in Vidal's style and careful research.
All in all, the book works as a deconstruction of myths and a vivid portrayal of 19th-century life, and as a serviceable and lively history, which is probably Vidal's intent.
Fantastic historical fiction, particularly the Revolution/Adams/Jefferson era. (I found the framing device/Jackson era storyline less interesting, and admittedly skimmed some of it)
I would recommend the book to any American, because it provides an important look into our nation's history. Definitely check it out if you're interested in U. S. History and the Founding Fathers.
Like many readers over the last year or two I imagine, I came to this book after Lin Manuel Miranda's Hamilton. It is more historically accurate than Hamilton, in events and relationships, but less accessible to the newbie historian. (This is not a fault in Hamilton mind you -- the play could easily have been double or triple the length with all of the necessary characters and events not being compressed. Simply a notation, since astute readers will note many areas in which the stories differ)
I would recommend the book to any American, because it provides an important look into our nation's history. Definitely check it out if you're interested in U. S. History and the Founding Fathers.
Like many readers over the last year or two I imagine, I came to this book after Lin Manuel Miranda's Hamilton. It is more historically accurate than Hamilton, in events and relationships, but less accessible to the newbie historian. (This is not a fault in Hamilton mind you -- the play could easily have been double or triple the length with all of the necessary characters and events not being compressed. Simply a notation, since astute readers will note many areas in which the stories differ)
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes