I assume I recognized what I was getting into with this book. The subtitle indications at the way this is a quite thoroughgoing mental history, as opposed to a verifiable story. Ellis sets Jefferson as an incomprehensible figure protected from compelling investigation by a conflicting rationality and in addition a held identity. Both of which might be valid, yet both of which made this book insufficient on genuine understanding. Ellis doesn’t invest much energy inquiring as to why Jefferson was how he was(an entirely beneficial question, I think), rather appearing, in rather an excessive amount of detail how he was: a distinguished populist, a slaveholding champion of individual freedom. The inconsistencies are there, certainly. Ellis just abandons it at that excessively patly.
As a character study, any reasonable person would agree that a decent piece of this book is theoretical. Ellis relates the contending belief systems and their hypothetical underpinnings of a few noteworthy characters(there is a decent correlation/differentiation of Adams and Jefferson here), however he frequently overlooks or overlooks the many-sided quality of human instinct, decreasing a man to a specific philosophy’s nonentity.
His style is proportionately conceptual. Managing fundamentally with inquiries of reasoning and character, he expect a somewhat grandiose, shapeless tone that passes on his goal all around ok, yet can begin to ramble before long. That is a disgrace, since the start of his talk depends on amending the mainstream picture of Jefferson; I can’t envision that the layman who apparently has this restricted perspective of Jefferson would be intrigued enough to stay with this thick little book.
This is a past filled with thoughts, of convictions and of goals. Be that as it may, time and again, it dismisses the authentic, and in this manner jumbles
the thoughts, convictions and beliefs it tries to clarify. Disappointing.