You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by nelsta
Churchill: Walking with Destiny by Andrew Roberts
4.0
A few weeks ago, I told my son that I was going to take him out for ice cream. He immediately broke down crying and complained that he wanted ice cream. Incredulous, I impotently attempted to explain that that's exactly what I was doing with him. Eventually, we each enjoyed a few scoops together, but his emotional insistence on doing the exact activity I had planned was draining. Reading "Churchill: Walking with Destiny" was a bit like that. Roberts' biography was the literary equivalent of artisan ice cream: superbly palatable, expertly crafted, and wonderfully fun. But he spent more than half of the book trying to convince me that Winston Churchill was a great man with a bad rap. I already believe that! You needn't spend five hundred pages convincing me so!
At 1,100 pages, it is one of the longest books I have ever read (it's about 100 pages longer than Ron Chernow's "Grant" and a few dozen pages shorter than William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"). I enjoy long books, especially about eminent men of history, but Roberts' pro-Churchill bias became increasingly difficult to forgive once it had dragged on longer than the entire Old Testament. I don't blame Roberts for the book's length: Churchill himself was long-winded, opinionated, witty, and verbose! Setting aside Roberts' obstinate and unnecessary PR campaigning on Churchill's behalf, the book is quite well written. It overflows with stupendous stories from an incredible life that spanned nine of the most important decades in world history. Despite the book's prodigious length, it still omits portions of the story unnecessary to the plot.
For example, Churchill's relationship with his father is discussed at length, but his relationships with his children and grandchildren are awarded very little attention. He played an outsized role in the division of the Middle East after World War I, yet his actions and their consequences are swept over in favor of the stories of Gallipoli and his time in the Admiralty. I understand why Roberts omitted them, but I remain disappointed that so large a biography could not contain more detail on important matters like family and events with significant geopolitical consequences.
Occasionally, Roberts draws dubious conclusions without presenting sufficient evidence. This happens with increasing frequency toward the end of the book. For example, Churchill is compared favorably against Napoleon on the final page with only a single sentence of explanation (he's superior because he fought for democracy, which seems awfully reductive). When arguing against Churchill's detractors, he dismisses their arguments without much more than an irritated hand wave. I would have appreciated a thorough discussion on Churchill and the accusation that he starved Bengalis during the Second World War, for example. But Roberts waves this concern aside; he presents Churchill as close to infallible. I believe this approach did a disservice to the subject.
I admire Churchill and, complaints aside, I enjoyed the biography. I got to know Churchill intimately through the private correspondence between him and his wife and others like King George VI. Anyone interested in either World War, Imperial Britain, or the eminent Prime Minister should read this book (but with a wary eye for Roberts' ineffectual criticism). It would be difficult to find a more important individual from the 20th century than Winston Spencer Churchill.
At 1,100 pages, it is one of the longest books I have ever read (it's about 100 pages longer than Ron Chernow's "Grant" and a few dozen pages shorter than William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"). I enjoy long books, especially about eminent men of history, but Roberts' pro-Churchill bias became increasingly difficult to forgive once it had dragged on longer than the entire Old Testament. I don't blame Roberts for the book's length: Churchill himself was long-winded, opinionated, witty, and verbose! Setting aside Roberts' obstinate and unnecessary PR campaigning on Churchill's behalf, the book is quite well written. It overflows with stupendous stories from an incredible life that spanned nine of the most important decades in world history. Despite the book's prodigious length, it still omits portions of the story unnecessary to the plot.
For example, Churchill's relationship with his father is discussed at length, but his relationships with his children and grandchildren are awarded very little attention. He played an outsized role in the division of the Middle East after World War I, yet his actions and their consequences are swept over in favor of the stories of Gallipoli and his time in the Admiralty. I understand why Roberts omitted them, but I remain disappointed that so large a biography could not contain more detail on important matters like family and events with significant geopolitical consequences.
Occasionally, Roberts draws dubious conclusions without presenting sufficient evidence. This happens with increasing frequency toward the end of the book. For example, Churchill is compared favorably against Napoleon on the final page with only a single sentence of explanation (he's superior because he fought for democracy, which seems awfully reductive). When arguing against Churchill's detractors, he dismisses their arguments without much more than an irritated hand wave. I would have appreciated a thorough discussion on Churchill and the accusation that he starved Bengalis during the Second World War, for example. But Roberts waves this concern aside; he presents Churchill as close to infallible. I believe this approach did a disservice to the subject.
I admire Churchill and, complaints aside, I enjoyed the biography. I got to know Churchill intimately through the private correspondence between him and his wife and others like King George VI. Anyone interested in either World War, Imperial Britain, or the eminent Prime Minister should read this book (but with a wary eye for Roberts' ineffectual criticism). It would be difficult to find a more important individual from the 20th century than Winston Spencer Churchill.