A few day ago I finally reading Jon Krakauer’s book: Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman. If you don’t know who Tillman was, allow me to quickly explain. Tillman was a safety for the Arizona Cardinals until the 2001-2002 season. After the events on September 11, 2001 he decided that playing football wasn’t enough. His nation was going to war, and he felt it was wrong to sit on his butt and play football. Pat Tillman enlisted in the army and became an Army Ranger. On April 22, 2004, Pat Tillman was killed.
Krakauer’s book is decent. Tillman has always been a hero of mine since the day he turned down a 3.6 million dollar contract to join the military. Not too many people (post World War II) would turn down a multi-million dollar contract to become a soldier and serve his country. Since he became a hero of mine, I knew a lot about him. For me, many of the things that Krakauer talks about (and many find surprising) I already knew because I had previously read a lot about Pat Tillman. For example, I knew that Tillman was a thinker, a bit of a thrill seeker, as well as a complex, smart, and generous individual. He was not the grunt, or football jock that many have labeled him as. That isn’t to say that I was still not surprised by what was included in Krakauer’s book at times.
The death and cover up of Tillman’s by the military is well described by Krakauer. I consider myself one who has become somewhat desensitized to the horrors of war and combat. I have read a lot of gruesome actions, seen it on TV, videogames, and on the news. Krakauer does a great job at detailing the events with brutal detail; so much so that I actually got a knot in my stomach. The level of detail is where Krakuer excels with his work, as he finds a way to put you into the mind of Pat Tillman.
For the most part, Krakauer uses one main source to convey the thoughts of late athlete and soldier. Tillman had kept a personal journal throughout a large portion of his life. Krakauer uses this journal to fill in the story of Tillman’s life by allowing Krakauer to add Tillman’s thoughts, fears, theories, and philosophies to the narrative. The journal proves to be a fantastic addition to the work as it helps to detail what Pat was trying to accomplish at certain points in his life. Without the journal that information would be forever lost. In addition, the journal adds credibility to the work because it is a primary source that would have been written soon after the events unfolded. Journals, unlike oral history accounts, don’t fade or distort what happened; for Krakauer to include the journal, as well as interviews and recorded statements, as the main driving points is commendable.
Although Krakauer used solid sources in his writing of the book, there are a few criticisms that must be mentioned. My first criticism is based on his end note section. Secondly, I must also be critical of Krakauer in regards to one aspect of his writing because he sometimes has chapters that have nothing to do with the work at hand. While sometimes they are interesting, other times they are distracting enough to make the reader ask “did I grab the wrong book? I am still reading that book on Tillman right?”
After spending some time pondering why these chapters on Jessica Lynch, friendly fire, Afghan history, other military mixups, and higher command snafus, that have nothing to do with the odyssey that is Pat Tillman, one can tell there is a considerable liberal bias. While Krakauer’s claims do not prove to necessarily be false but they are unnecssasry in elaborating on his thesis (that Tillman is more complex than your average football jock or military grunt). To me, it is sad that he uses Tillman as a vehicle for furthering his own political opinion. Tillman may have leaned liberal himself, there is no way to even prove if Tillman’s journal was used out of context. I am left asking why particular parts were actually included, and others were not. Since it is Tillman’s personal journal
One of the biggest criticisms I have of Krakauer’s book is with his endnotes. Krakauer never documents where he gets any of his information. He has a few footnotes in the later chapters however they are only explanatory. If one surveys the endnotes he does give the sources he used but he does not say when he used them. Because he doesn’t have true endnotes he could easily combine parts of chapters to give it more validity when it is not really from that source.
In the end, I give this book a 3 out of 5. Although Where Men Win Glory is an interesting book, the criticisms are actually quite significant. The book is useful in explaining the thoughts, and philosophies of Tillman and Krakauer is successful in proving that Tillman was a more complex individual than what most of the public precieved. If you followed Tillman closely however, there is little to learn. Krakauer should have left his personal feelings on politics out and he should have documented his sources much better. If he would have not used Tillman’s death for a vehicle against Bush and the military then this work could be taken much more respectfully as it would then be a great service to Pat Tillman and his family.
Avatar: Mini Review
Posted Sunday December 20, 2009
at 12:40am in Mini Review, Movies
“Just relax and let your mind go blank. That shouldn’t be too hard for you.” – Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine
I found this quote to be quite telling of the film. I will not give away specifics of the film for those who still have see it. I will say that this film will knock your socks off visually. It is the best CGI I have ever seen. There are actually times where you forget you are watching CGI of blue humanoids. In some scenes the details of the graphics is so well done that you fully become emersed in the fictional world of Pandora. If you go into this film thinking it will give you an elaborate original story, then you may be disappointed. If you are just “going for the ride” or are interested in how 3D should be done, then you will leave the theater quite satisfied. Personally I left quite happy. I think it is ridiculous to see a movie in theaters when they charge you fifteen dollars to get in, so normally films I see in the theater I do not approve of. I often only go if I have an extremely high interest in seeing them. I mean, I generally go to the theater once a year. Avatar is definitively worth seeing.
Last night, just before the start of game four of the Western Conference Playoff game between the Lakers and the Nuggets, I finished Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. I had started the book during the Spring semester but academics interfered with the progression of the book. So after watching Angels and Demons at the Edwards La Verne 12 Cinema, I came home, sat down, and finished reading the book.
Levin’s work was really a fascinating read. Certain chapters are a bit overwhelming, particularly dealing with the economy. Those chapters could be my problem however, as economic factors definitely have been known to confuse me. Chapters dealing with the social controversies within the U.S., and abroad, are indeed filled with great content. The one chapter that really stuck out was the chapter on illegal immigration. Personally, I have known the dangers that illegal immigration could pose to the United States, however Levin brought other factors to my attention that I had never truly considered. To do this, he cited historical examples, and primary sources of great writers and thinkers. If I could just pick one chapter out to read, that one be the one as it is one of his more fluid chapters as it pertains to his use of sources.
The book does fall short in two areas. First, some of his sources are questionable, but I suppose that is acceptable when dealing with a political pundit (regardless of which side he/she is on). Secondly, his use of language is not necessarily suited to his audience. A major part of Levin’s book is to rally the conservative voice into action. Knowing a few conservatives myself, I would say he should have chosen language that was more guided to the simpleton. After all, most of those who could read his book without a dictionary are probably smart enough to already be engaged in politics at least at the local level. Other than these two gripes, Levin makes outstanding points about the statist and what a conservative must do to preserve the country as we know it.
With that said, I would definitely recommend the book to others regardless of political affiliation. Despite the questionable sources, I think his message still stands true and it needs to be read for others to realize what the statist could potentially do with its power it has right now.
I would like to cite a few items out of his book that for one reason or another, grabbed my attention.
Philosophy on the combination of science and religion:
“Reason and science can explain the existence of matter, but they cannot explain why there is matter. They can explain the existence of the universe, but they cannot explain why there is a universe. They can explain the existence of nature and the law of physics, but they cannot explain why there is nature and the law of physics. They can explain the existence of life, but they cannot explain why there is life. They can explain the existence of consciousness, but they cannot explain why there is consciousness.”1
Interesting little quote:
“Even good men are capable of bad things.”2
On language and nation:
“The United States is already a bilingual nation. Government at all levels and a growing list of private concerns do business in both English and Spanish. And Spanish is the predominant language in communities throughout the country. This is a destructive condition. St. Augustine observed: ‘When men cannot communicate their thought to each other, simply because of difference of language, all the similarity of their common human nature is of no avail ot unite them in fellowship.’ Alexis De Tocqueville mad the same point: ‘Language is perhaps the strongest, perhaps the most enduring link which unites men.’”3
On the ultimate goal of Conservative ideals:
“The conservative does not seek rigid adherence to any specific course of action: neutrality or alliance, preemptive war or defensive posture, nation building or limited military strike. The benchmark, again, is whether any specific path will serve the nation’s best interests.”4
The following quote deals with his response to statists that claim conservatives are evil for phenomena like that of the patriot act and even racial profiling. Levin writes:
“During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt ordered the unconstitutional internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans, which was upheld by an activist Supreme Court. Roosevelt remains among the Statist’s most adored leaders and the Court among his most venerated institutions. When Robert Kennedy served as attorney general of the Unied States in the 1960’s he did nothing to stop the illegal bugging of Martin Luther King, Jr.s’ telephone by the FBI. Today, the federal Justice Department building is named after Kennedy. Under President Bill Clinton, the National Security Agency launched the Echelon surveillance program, in which the U.S. government routinely intercepts international email, telephone, and fax communications of citizen and terrorist alike. It drew virtually no attention from self-identified civil libertarian groups.”5
End notes:
1. Mark R. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (New York: Threshold Editions, 2009), 24.
2. Ibid., 59.
3. Ibid., 161.
4. Ibid., 183.
5. Ibid., 192.
