What do you think?
Rate this book
Heroes: From Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar to Churchill and de Gaulle
A galaxy of legendary figures from the annals of Western historyIn this enlightening and entertaining work, Paul Johnson, the bestselling author of Intellectuals and Creators , approaches the subject of heroism with stirring examples of men and women from every age, walk of life, and corner of the planet who have inspired and transformed not only their own cultures but the entire world as well.Heroes Samson, Judith, and Deborah Henry V and Joan of Arc Elizabeth I and Walter Raleigh George Washington, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Nelson Emily Dickinson Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee Mae West and Marilyn Monroe Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II
336 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2007
104 people are currently reading
871 people want to read
About the author
Paul Johnson
135 books840 followersPaul Johnson works as a historian, journalist and author. He was educated at Stonyhurst School in Clitheroe, Lancashire and Magdalen College, Oxford, and first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine. He has also written for leading newspapers and magazines in Britain, the US and Europe.
Paul Johnson has published over 40 books including A History of Christianity (1979), A History of the English People (1987), Intellectuals (1988), The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815—1830 (1991), Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000 (1999), A History of the American People (2000), A History of the Jews (2001) and Art: A New History (2003) as well as biographies of Elizabeth I (1974), Napoleon (2002), George Washington (2005) and Pope John Paul II (1982).
Paul Johnson has published over 40 books including A History of Christianity (1979), A History of the English People (1987), Intellectuals (1988), The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815—1830 (1991), Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000 (1999), A History of the American People (2000), A History of the Jews (2001) and Art: A New History (2003) as well as biographies of Elizabeth I (1974), Napoleon (2002), George Washington (2005) and Pope John Paul II (1982).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews
September 9, 2014
Interesting because of the subject itself, but I found it chaotic and fragmented and by the last chapter – enraging. After this book, I officially dislike Mr. Johnson on a personal level, and distrust him as a historian. He makes bizarre value judgements and throws opinions as facts. If his evaluations of events I have opinion on are so absurd, even horrifying, I find it hard to respect his views on the subjects I know nothing or little about. He has been on the wrong side of history far too many times. He is talking affectionately about Reagan, George W. Bush and destroys Jimmy Carter (one of the reasons – he wore sweaters in the White House). He has “defended Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal, finding his cover-up considerably less heinous than Bill Clinton's perjury”; professed himself unimpressed by Nelson Mandela, and...
"And I like that lady—Sarah Palin. She's great. I like the cut of her jib." The former governor of Alaska, he says, "is in the good tradition of America, which this awful political correctness business goes against." Plus: "She's got courage. That's very important in politics. You can have all the right ideas and the ability to express them. But if you haven't got guts, if you haven't got courage the way Margaret Thatcher had courage—and Reagan, come to think of it. Your last president had courage too—if you haven't got courage, all the other virtues are no good at all. It's the central virtue."
I guess he is just senile.
http://slpssm.blogspot.com/2014/09/fl...
"And I like that lady—Sarah Palin. She's great. I like the cut of her jib." The former governor of Alaska, he says, "is in the good tradition of America, which this awful political correctness business goes against." Plus: "She's got courage. That's very important in politics. You can have all the right ideas and the ability to express them. But if you haven't got guts, if you haven't got courage the way Margaret Thatcher had courage—and Reagan, come to think of it. Your last president had courage too—if you haven't got courage, all the other virtues are no good at all. It's the central virtue."
I guess he is just senile.
http://slpssm.blogspot.com/2014/09/fl...
October 13, 2020
I enjoyed this a lot and found it absorbing, as witnessed by the fact that I read it in two days. However, Johnson didn't hit on every point in some cases. A few of his heroes didn't seem to me to have any sort of heroism at all, even when reading his points. However, those were few and far between and I liked the survey of the different sorts of heroes. I'd never have thought of Mae West, for example, and knowing more about her I can indeed see her courage. I especially enjoyed Johnson's commentary about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee (which was very enlightening), and Pope John Paul II. But, then, who doesn't enjoy seeing one's own heroes praised? :-)
February 18, 2022
Some fascinating anecdotes and a lot of insightful moments, but the whole thing just doesn't gel. Paul Johnson says he's been writing history for sixty years, and on this one he's definitely showing his age. Hint to aging male historians: stick to Caesar, and leave Mae West alone. And close your mouth while you're breathing, like we talked about. You're making everybody feel weird!
December 29, 2017
Paul Johnson collects a group of people that you know that he considers heroes and gives an overview of their lives. It's less about what makes a hero, although he goes into it somewhat, and more about why he thinks these particular people are heroes. Many of the obvious candidates are on the list like Lincoln, Churchill, Wellington, and Alexander the Great, but a few curiosities arise like Marilyn Monroe and Mae West. He even creates a special place for party hostesses and gives you some examples there. Think of it more like mini-biographies, something that Johnson is brilliant at. He gives you enough anecdotes to feel like you are learning some new about each person even if you already know a little or a great deal.
In Johnson's Monroe Marilyn section he explains something I have never heard a film critic articulate. Marilyn was a natural movie star and actress and she was hamstrung by the “Method” approach that was in direct conflict with what made her so special.
I didn't know Charles De Gaulle was 6'6” which must have been an oddity on top of his very unusual looks which Johnson describes almost comically. It does go a long way to explain why he was such an unlikable person despite being essential to France in the last half of the century.
Churchill was likable, but losing the election in 1945 was probably a blessing in disguise, For nothing else, it allowed him to write his history of World War II which is a seminal work on the subject.
Heroes is the kind of book you can read a chapter here or there over the course of a few months and come away each night with something interesting to think abut.
In Johnson's Monroe Marilyn section he explains something I have never heard a film critic articulate. Marilyn was a natural movie star and actress and she was hamstrung by the “Method” approach that was in direct conflict with what made her so special.
I didn't know Charles De Gaulle was 6'6” which must have been an oddity on top of his very unusual looks which Johnson describes almost comically. It does go a long way to explain why he was such an unlikable person despite being essential to France in the last half of the century.
Churchill was likable, but losing the election in 1945 was probably a blessing in disguise, For nothing else, it allowed him to write his history of World War II which is a seminal work on the subject.
Heroes is the kind of book you can read a chapter here or there over the course of a few months and come away each night with something interesting to think abut.
August 26, 2018
This is a fundamentally silly book, really a waste of time. It does not seem to have wasted much of Johnson's time. I suppose it wasted a somewhat smaller quantum of mine, but it hurt me more.
Other reviewers have complained about his reference to private conversations or contact with several of the protagonists or with other important people. I thought I would be able to overlook this but it really is obtrusive and reflects that Johnson finds himself more important than any other subject. I had a similar response to his many, many reminders that he attended Oxford. If it had been Newcastle University, would it have received so many mentions? Hardly.
I have two main complaints about the book. The first is the perversity of his selections of many of the "heroes"; the second is that his writing is too often lazy.
Johnson states in his introduction, "What follows in this book is a small selection of heroes and heroines who still evoke wonder or admiration or respect or in some cases sympathy...I am trying to approach the subject of heroism not so much by definition and analysis as by example." This surely clumsily sidesteps the vital question. The Oxford Dictionary is more helpful: "A person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities." And that, I would have thought, is pretty much how most of us would have seen it: not complicated so why not state it upfront?
Johnson includes a number of individuals whose presence he can justify only because he chose to include them and "heroism" is to mean the sum total of characteristics of those he includes.
Why Lady Jane Grey? She achieved nothing of note and was probably the tool of her father-in-law and others rather than an independent operative with a grand goal. Ultimately she was, inevitably, executed and any dignity she displayed before or during that end is hardly enough to transcend "bravery" and "dignity" into "heroism".
Mary Queen of Scots? Again, no achievements. On the contrary, a series of ill-advised liaisons; probable involvement in at least one murder and definite involvement in the unsuccessful plan to assassinate the Queen of England. She died bravely too, having been correctly convicted of treason.
Jane Welsh Carlyle? Wife of the writer, Thomas Carlyle. Her heroism consists, apparently, of being a woman and of engaging in a prolific correspondence with her husband. For her being a woman and thus deprived of opportunities she might have deserved, we can certainly sympathise with her. However, in what ways does this, or her correspondence, entertaining as it might be, constitute heroism? It does not.
It is unfortunate that these fatuous inclusions are all of women. However, if we look for heroic women in the literary world, Marian Evans (George Eliot) or even the Brontes battled difficult circumstances but achieved something as a result of their personal characteristics. Certainly I would regard Eliot as heroic for her monumental achievements, in fiction-writing, in translating, as a philosopher and as a social iconoclast, all in the face of vigorous opposition from her family and many prominent members of society.
Again, Johnson includes other "heroic" women whose presence is plain absurd: Lady Pamela Berry, a personal friend whose heroism consists of conducting a salon for the political class; Mae West, heroic because she became the second-highest wage earner in the world via popular entertainment; and Marilyn Monroe who appears, in Johnson's account, to have achieved nothing beyond the ability to charm people instantaneously, which is, I suppose an achievement for someone with a life circumscribed by so much psychosis. But heroic? No.
Most of the men Johnson includes seem reasonable enough and his potted biographies are adequate. Until one finds in the piece on Henry V of England that he was fearless; “anyone who needs evidence…should see his letter…in the British Museum". Now if that is not writerly laziness and contempt for the reader, I do not know what would be.
Johnson's apparent acceptance of several Old Testament books as historical documents in his first chapter is further evidence of weak researching.
Overall then I would say this book is self-indulgent and worth no more attention than the newspaper comics. I feel that the not inconsiderable cost of my copy of the book was fraudulently obtained.
Other reviewers have complained about his reference to private conversations or contact with several of the protagonists or with other important people. I thought I would be able to overlook this but it really is obtrusive and reflects that Johnson finds himself more important than any other subject. I had a similar response to his many, many reminders that he attended Oxford. If it had been Newcastle University, would it have received so many mentions? Hardly.
I have two main complaints about the book. The first is the perversity of his selections of many of the "heroes"; the second is that his writing is too often lazy.
Johnson states in his introduction, "What follows in this book is a small selection of heroes and heroines who still evoke wonder or admiration or respect or in some cases sympathy...I am trying to approach the subject of heroism not so much by definition and analysis as by example." This surely clumsily sidesteps the vital question. The Oxford Dictionary is more helpful: "A person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities." And that, I would have thought, is pretty much how most of us would have seen it: not complicated so why not state it upfront?
Johnson includes a number of individuals whose presence he can justify only because he chose to include them and "heroism" is to mean the sum total of characteristics of those he includes.
Why Lady Jane Grey? She achieved nothing of note and was probably the tool of her father-in-law and others rather than an independent operative with a grand goal. Ultimately she was, inevitably, executed and any dignity she displayed before or during that end is hardly enough to transcend "bravery" and "dignity" into "heroism".
Mary Queen of Scots? Again, no achievements. On the contrary, a series of ill-advised liaisons; probable involvement in at least one murder and definite involvement in the unsuccessful plan to assassinate the Queen of England. She died bravely too, having been correctly convicted of treason.
Jane Welsh Carlyle? Wife of the writer, Thomas Carlyle. Her heroism consists, apparently, of being a woman and of engaging in a prolific correspondence with her husband. For her being a woman and thus deprived of opportunities she might have deserved, we can certainly sympathise with her. However, in what ways does this, or her correspondence, entertaining as it might be, constitute heroism? It does not.
It is unfortunate that these fatuous inclusions are all of women. However, if we look for heroic women in the literary world, Marian Evans (George Eliot) or even the Brontes battled difficult circumstances but achieved something as a result of their personal characteristics. Certainly I would regard Eliot as heroic for her monumental achievements, in fiction-writing, in translating, as a philosopher and as a social iconoclast, all in the face of vigorous opposition from her family and many prominent members of society.
Again, Johnson includes other "heroic" women whose presence is plain absurd: Lady Pamela Berry, a personal friend whose heroism consists of conducting a salon for the political class; Mae West, heroic because she became the second-highest wage earner in the world via popular entertainment; and Marilyn Monroe who appears, in Johnson's account, to have achieved nothing beyond the ability to charm people instantaneously, which is, I suppose an achievement for someone with a life circumscribed by so much psychosis. But heroic? No.
Most of the men Johnson includes seem reasonable enough and his potted biographies are adequate. Until one finds in the piece on Henry V of England that he was fearless; “anyone who needs evidence…should see his letter…in the British Museum". Now if that is not writerly laziness and contempt for the reader, I do not know what would be.
Johnson's apparent acceptance of several Old Testament books as historical documents in his first chapter is further evidence of weak researching.
Overall then I would say this book is self-indulgent and worth no more attention than the newspaper comics. I feel that the not inconsiderable cost of my copy of the book was fraudulently obtained.
February 24, 2020
As a casual read that takes slides of notable people, some great and others just famous, Johnson hits some and misses others.
My admiration for men like Henry V and women like Queen Elizabeth has increased. Lincoln and Washington were two of the most spotless to emerge with heroic traits like civility, morality, strength of will, humility, and incredible discernment.
Sure, some people like Joan of Arc and Mary Queen of Scots have been maligned unfairly, or not, though Johnson seems to treat them with respect.
It works like a classical review of a pantheon of the gods. Some truly heroic, others tragic, and some just fillers.
Like the other Johnson book, Intellectuals, it is interesting, controversial in parts, but always entertaining.
Three stars. 2 dings for unnecessary vulgarity in parts, and for including M.M., that was a waste of time.
My admiration for men like Henry V and women like Queen Elizabeth has increased. Lincoln and Washington were two of the most spotless to emerge with heroic traits like civility, morality, strength of will, humility, and incredible discernment.
Sure, some people like Joan of Arc and Mary Queen of Scots have been maligned unfairly, or not, though Johnson seems to treat them with respect.
It works like a classical review of a pantheon of the gods. Some truly heroic, others tragic, and some just fillers.
Like the other Johnson book, Intellectuals, it is interesting, controversial in parts, but always entertaining.
Three stars. 2 dings for unnecessary vulgarity in parts, and for including M.M., that was a waste of time.
January 23, 2015
A very good collection of some of the best men and women to have walked the earth.
I fell in love with Wellington, Lee, and Henry V and the others, for the most part, were quite enjoyable.
Johnson nicely balances emotion and reason to provide a solid argument for the inclusion of almost every individual. However, I wasn't convinced on his inclusion of Boudica and I completed skipped Wittgenstein(it was the only one that didn't seem justified thoroughly by the author).
Also, he name drops quite a bit in the last two chapters(which slightly lowered the score).
I fell in love with Wellington, Lee, and Henry V and the others, for the most part, were quite enjoyable.
Johnson nicely balances emotion and reason to provide a solid argument for the inclusion of almost every individual. However, I wasn't convinced on his inclusion of Boudica and I completed skipped Wittgenstein(it was the only one that didn't seem justified thoroughly by the author).
Also, he name drops quite a bit in the last two chapters(which slightly lowered the score).
September 3, 2021
Not an essential read, but certainly a relaxing one. Mostly I enjoyed Jonhson's many quips about intellectuals who "think that ideas are more important than people" and economists who "confirm in theory what works in practice".
As far as essays themselves the only two I remember are about Marylin Monroe and Judith, and I finished the book nine months ago. Perhaps it is a testament to my poor memory, but on the other hand Johnson's magnificent "Modern Times" left a number of permanent mental markers, and I read it in late 1990s.
As far as essays themselves the only two I remember are about Marylin Monroe and Judith, and I finished the book nine months ago. Perhaps it is a testament to my poor memory, but on the other hand Johnson's magnificent "Modern Times" left a number of permanent mental markers, and I read it in late 1990s.
November 4, 2017
El desfile de aquellos personajes que Paul Johnson define como héroes resulta conmovedor y esclarecedor. Los motivos por los cuáles una persona ordinaria es catalogada como superior a sus pares esa definida por la subjetividad de Johnson, pero concuerdo casi en su totalidad.
March 15, 2021
Glimpses into the life of extraordinary people across all time and all walks of life from every background.
March 31, 2020
In our paradoxical culture of hero-worshipping and anti-hero admiring, the idea of heroism seems to belong to an antediluvian ethos of the misty past when heroic mortals became divine immortals enshrined in pantheons of gods and goddesses. So much so that the ancient Greeks regarded a hero as a paragon of Arete, a prized quality in the Homeric hero, a blend of soldiery valor and moral integrity, a perfect union of moral and physical virtues. However, human heroism is constant of every age, universal of every culture and boundless of race and gender, which the public will always find it appealing and compelling because it shows how one can transform the impossible into the possible with a shot of gusto for courageousness in a cloak of confidence. That said, Heroes by Paul Johnson bears the witness to historical heroes and heroines whose dauntless spirits flew over the mountains of obstacles and brings them close to us with their human sides of fallibilities and follies.
From Samson and King David of Israel to Alexander the Great of Macedonia and Julius Cesar of the Republic of Rome, and to Joan of Arc to Margaret Thatcher of the U.K., what these people have in common is not supernatural feats of magical physical power or omnipotent knowledge, but natural courage winged by the independence of mind arising from the ability to think things by themselves against dominant waves of compromises of their times. In this regard, heroes, as we generally define per se, are anti-establishment, anti-totalitarianism, and anti-supremacy in the sense that they challenge the subjectivity of popular beliefs or received norms to unpick the validity of truths, even if doing so will require their sacrifice and cruelty at the same time. It’s a sacrifice that they should endure the pains of persecution, and cruelty that they should vanquish the signs of human frailties to act upon their resolution without fail. Alas and alack, it sometimes results in pyrrhic victory, not only of the hero but also of those the hero intends to bring the triumph of the collective glory. Being a hero is akin to being a Hamlet whose mental pendulum vacillates between “To be” or “Not to be.”
This is my fourth reading of Johnson’s books on history elaborately ornamented with his trademark natural wits, deeply saturated with his dazzling erudition of subjects, and deliciously narrated in a common language that always invite all, learned or novices, all of which are the essential key components of being a great writer who can share his knowledge and put people before ideas. In this book of heroes, Johnson is a sage raconteur of the heterodoxic history of mankind whose goal is to educate the public to illuminate the parts of our human history in the context of regarding the universal principles of reason and taste. With his scintillating story-telling skills, Johnson pivots deftly from the unknown interesting truths about his heroes to the cosmic principles of heroes that hold true today. If you are a history buff who always hungers for those unknown truths about famous people in history that are known to a few backstages of history, this book will satiate the appetites of your senses and nourish the mind with reason married with pleasure.
From Samson and King David of Israel to Alexander the Great of Macedonia and Julius Cesar of the Republic of Rome, and to Joan of Arc to Margaret Thatcher of the U.K., what these people have in common is not supernatural feats of magical physical power or omnipotent knowledge, but natural courage winged by the independence of mind arising from the ability to think things by themselves against dominant waves of compromises of their times. In this regard, heroes, as we generally define per se, are anti-establishment, anti-totalitarianism, and anti-supremacy in the sense that they challenge the subjectivity of popular beliefs or received norms to unpick the validity of truths, even if doing so will require their sacrifice and cruelty at the same time. It’s a sacrifice that they should endure the pains of persecution, and cruelty that they should vanquish the signs of human frailties to act upon their resolution without fail. Alas and alack, it sometimes results in pyrrhic victory, not only of the hero but also of those the hero intends to bring the triumph of the collective glory. Being a hero is akin to being a Hamlet whose mental pendulum vacillates between “To be” or “Not to be.”
This is my fourth reading of Johnson’s books on history elaborately ornamented with his trademark natural wits, deeply saturated with his dazzling erudition of subjects, and deliciously narrated in a common language that always invite all, learned or novices, all of which are the essential key components of being a great writer who can share his knowledge and put people before ideas. In this book of heroes, Johnson is a sage raconteur of the heterodoxic history of mankind whose goal is to educate the public to illuminate the parts of our human history in the context of regarding the universal principles of reason and taste. With his scintillating story-telling skills, Johnson pivots deftly from the unknown interesting truths about his heroes to the cosmic principles of heroes that hold true today. If you are a history buff who always hungers for those unknown truths about famous people in history that are known to a few backstages of history, this book will satiate the appetites of your senses and nourish the mind with reason married with pleasure.
August 12, 2023
Paul Johnson is remarkable for the breadth of his knowledge and the originality of his historical analysis. To my mind, his Modern Times is the best account of the 20th Century that exists (perhaps with Geert Mak In Europa a close second as far as European history is concerned, but Johnson is broader.
In "Heroes", Johnson is at it again. He cites Samuel Johnson's musings when that famous man reviewed the cemetery of ancient Scottish kings: "By whom the subterranean vault are peopled is now unknown. The graves are very numerous and some of them undoubtedly contain the remains of men who did not expect to be so soon forgotten." To Paul Johnson, he decided to look instead for what kind of heroic behavior seems to have won (or in his mind, should have won--given the fickleness of the public)--a longer memory.
In this endeavour, he is mindful that "...history has no miracle; only causes and consequences."
He starts with the Hebrews--specifically because they tapped the minds and courage of their women--something which Johnson notes most ancient civilizations ignored. "How it camee about that so many great peoples, until quite recently, failed to draw upon half their human capital we shall never know. But the Hebrews did not fail..." He cites specifically Deborah and Judith--both women who called out the men of Israel to resisting and attacking the enemies of Israel--even while using their uniquely feminine qualities, while noting also David who, as at teenager met the challenge and defeated Goliath, again using his unique skills as a shepherd instead of the conventional weaponry of heavy armor and sword.
Proceeding to Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, Johnson notes that self-confidence (Alexander thought he was at least a demi-god, and we need not say much about Julius Caesar) can result in courage and achievements certainly not likely with those who deprecate themselves continuously. But Alexander also led from the front and shared the risks of battle with his men, while also investing the massive silver and gold bullion he and his armies won into infrastructure and coinage leading to an epic increase in economic activity (I know Macedonian coins are still surfacing in northern India from when I lived in Delhi). Caesar was from a "poor" noble family, and he realized the fastest and surest way of gaining power and riches was to extend the Roman Empire--in which he did not cut corners or play politics, but in mastering logistics and including the plebs in the spoils of war--perhaps being the world's first populist.
So goes Johnson--devoting 8-9 pages per hero--and always finding one or two (at least to me) overlooked facts and arguments as to the reason his heroes are unique and worthy to be remembered as heroes.
He treats Boudica (Boudicaea), Henry V and Joan of Arc (sold out by jealous Catholic clerics, Sir Thomas More, Lady Jane Grey, Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth I (brilliant in knowing when NOT to take a decision as well as deciding to open up control over the English economy to let non-nobles pursue opportunities to create wealth) and Sir Walter Raleigh (bold and capable to the point of indiscretion), before switching to more modern heroes. He compares George Washington with Wellington and Nelson. He delves into the arts, and notes especially the heorism of Jane Welsh Carlyle (for putting up and supporting Thomas Carlyle) and Emily Dickinson. He contrast Abraham Lincoln with General Robert E Lee--concluding the Lincoln's lack of pride and vision of the possible future world role of a united USA was more heroic than Lee's overweening sense of "honor", despite his intelligence and leadership qualities--and also noting how Lee's military strategy was frustrated by the bureaucratic mediocrity of Jefferson Davis.
In the 20th century, he notes Ludwig Wittgenstein's "cerebral heroism"--a brilliant engineer and philosopher who despite adulation wound up his career by in a sense attacking the self-seriousness of academics and left behind the admonition "stop doing philosophy'!
Johnson goes out of his way to examine which women should be recognized as heroes. He cites Lady Pamela Berry, Ottoline Morrell (instrumental in "developing" DH Lawrence, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, Virginia Woolf and Lytton Strachey), Lady Holland and Madame de Stael--as heroes who "ran" salons and dinner parties which they curated, and brought into the circles of power otherwise unrecognized geniuses. Says Johnson, these hostesses were "like a theatre director with a tricky cast and an improvised play. Or like a zookeeper with animals in unlocked cages."
He compares Winston Churchill (a bona fide hero and polymath) with De Gaulle (a "heroic monster"). Interestingly, de Gaulle, who was at some level an invention by the Allied Forces to head a "free France", was scathing about parliamentary democracy: "Why should parliamentary democracy (involving as it does in France the distribution of tobacco shops!) which is on its last legs everywhere, create Europe? ...Why should a type of democracy which nearly destroyed us, and isn't capable of ensuring the development even of Belgium, be sacrosanct when we have to overcome the enormous difficulties which face the creation of Europe?"
In a classic chapter, Johnson compares Mae West with the tragic life of Marilyn Monroe--noting that Mae West was a superb businessperson, and worked hard on developing her unique humor (developing more than 20,000 written jokes which remained racy but not explicit or dirty) and became America's highest paid entertainer. Johnson contrasts West's heroic 6 decades resilience and business acumen with the sad life of Marilyn Monroe (Norma Jean Mortenson), who came from a mentally ill single mother and was regrettably frequent abused growing up in many foster homes before bursting to what Johnson calls her "marriage to the camera", replete with the lack of privacy and ruthlessness of Hollywood. After her marriages to Arthur Miller and Joe Dimaggio, she had affairs with the Kennedy brothers, became ever more addicted to barbiturates and her overdose.
Johnson, a devout Catholic, winds up his list with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and John Paul II--all of whom were indispensable to the fall of Soviet Communism and its various offshoots. Reagan's commitment to " ' decency'... cutting taxes and freeing Americans from unnecessary burdens and enlarging freedom wherever consistent with safety and justice" was a powerful contrast to Soviet Communism's corrupt society of two bedroom apartments with 40 watt light bulbs, special privileges to the nomenklatura and closed shop at the political elite level.
Johnson admits his choice of "heroes" was subjective. The many different forms and historical contexts may further have resulted in this book's being a bit choppy and uneven in places. But Johnson's point was to show the wide variety of way in which human beings can make a heroic difference and that human beings make history--not the "dialectical forces of materialism." People with 1) independence of mind coming from thinking through things by themselves and not accepting whatever the ruling conventional wisdom holds, 2) resolution to act once one's mind is made up, 3) rejecting anything the lazy media "throws at you, provided you remain convinced you are doing right, and 4) to "act with personal courage at all times, regardless of the consequences to yourself."
This is a very dense book, but one which follows the above thread consistently and as always for Paul Johnson, provocatively.
In "Heroes", Johnson is at it again. He cites Samuel Johnson's musings when that famous man reviewed the cemetery of ancient Scottish kings: "By whom the subterranean vault are peopled is now unknown. The graves are very numerous and some of them undoubtedly contain the remains of men who did not expect to be so soon forgotten." To Paul Johnson, he decided to look instead for what kind of heroic behavior seems to have won (or in his mind, should have won--given the fickleness of the public)--a longer memory.
In this endeavour, he is mindful that "...history has no miracle; only causes and consequences."
He starts with the Hebrews--specifically because they tapped the minds and courage of their women--something which Johnson notes most ancient civilizations ignored. "How it camee about that so many great peoples, until quite recently, failed to draw upon half their human capital we shall never know. But the Hebrews did not fail..." He cites specifically Deborah and Judith--both women who called out the men of Israel to resisting and attacking the enemies of Israel--even while using their uniquely feminine qualities, while noting also David who, as at teenager met the challenge and defeated Goliath, again using his unique skills as a shepherd instead of the conventional weaponry of heavy armor and sword.
Proceeding to Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, Johnson notes that self-confidence (Alexander thought he was at least a demi-god, and we need not say much about Julius Caesar) can result in courage and achievements certainly not likely with those who deprecate themselves continuously. But Alexander also led from the front and shared the risks of battle with his men, while also investing the massive silver and gold bullion he and his armies won into infrastructure and coinage leading to an epic increase in economic activity (I know Macedonian coins are still surfacing in northern India from when I lived in Delhi). Caesar was from a "poor" noble family, and he realized the fastest and surest way of gaining power and riches was to extend the Roman Empire--in which he did not cut corners or play politics, but in mastering logistics and including the plebs in the spoils of war--perhaps being the world's first populist.
So goes Johnson--devoting 8-9 pages per hero--and always finding one or two (at least to me) overlooked facts and arguments as to the reason his heroes are unique and worthy to be remembered as heroes.
He treats Boudica (Boudicaea), Henry V and Joan of Arc (sold out by jealous Catholic clerics, Sir Thomas More, Lady Jane Grey, Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth I (brilliant in knowing when NOT to take a decision as well as deciding to open up control over the English economy to let non-nobles pursue opportunities to create wealth) and Sir Walter Raleigh (bold and capable to the point of indiscretion), before switching to more modern heroes. He compares George Washington with Wellington and Nelson. He delves into the arts, and notes especially the heorism of Jane Welsh Carlyle (for putting up and supporting Thomas Carlyle) and Emily Dickinson. He contrast Abraham Lincoln with General Robert E Lee--concluding the Lincoln's lack of pride and vision of the possible future world role of a united USA was more heroic than Lee's overweening sense of "honor", despite his intelligence and leadership qualities--and also noting how Lee's military strategy was frustrated by the bureaucratic mediocrity of Jefferson Davis.
In the 20th century, he notes Ludwig Wittgenstein's "cerebral heroism"--a brilliant engineer and philosopher who despite adulation wound up his career by in a sense attacking the self-seriousness of academics and left behind the admonition "stop doing philosophy'!
Johnson goes out of his way to examine which women should be recognized as heroes. He cites Lady Pamela Berry, Ottoline Morrell (instrumental in "developing" DH Lawrence, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, Virginia Woolf and Lytton Strachey), Lady Holland and Madame de Stael--as heroes who "ran" salons and dinner parties which they curated, and brought into the circles of power otherwise unrecognized geniuses. Says Johnson, these hostesses were "like a theatre director with a tricky cast and an improvised play. Or like a zookeeper with animals in unlocked cages."
He compares Winston Churchill (a bona fide hero and polymath) with De Gaulle (a "heroic monster"). Interestingly, de Gaulle, who was at some level an invention by the Allied Forces to head a "free France", was scathing about parliamentary democracy: "Why should parliamentary democracy (involving as it does in France the distribution of tobacco shops!) which is on its last legs everywhere, create Europe? ...Why should a type of democracy which nearly destroyed us, and isn't capable of ensuring the development even of Belgium, be sacrosanct when we have to overcome the enormous difficulties which face the creation of Europe?"
In a classic chapter, Johnson compares Mae West with the tragic life of Marilyn Monroe--noting that Mae West was a superb businessperson, and worked hard on developing her unique humor (developing more than 20,000 written jokes which remained racy but not explicit or dirty) and became America's highest paid entertainer. Johnson contrasts West's heroic 6 decades resilience and business acumen with the sad life of Marilyn Monroe (Norma Jean Mortenson), who came from a mentally ill single mother and was regrettably frequent abused growing up in many foster homes before bursting to what Johnson calls her "marriage to the camera", replete with the lack of privacy and ruthlessness of Hollywood. After her marriages to Arthur Miller and Joe Dimaggio, she had affairs with the Kennedy brothers, became ever more addicted to barbiturates and her overdose.
Johnson, a devout Catholic, winds up his list with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and John Paul II--all of whom were indispensable to the fall of Soviet Communism and its various offshoots. Reagan's commitment to " ' decency'... cutting taxes and freeing Americans from unnecessary burdens and enlarging freedom wherever consistent with safety and justice" was a powerful contrast to Soviet Communism's corrupt society of two bedroom apartments with 40 watt light bulbs, special privileges to the nomenklatura and closed shop at the political elite level.
Johnson admits his choice of "heroes" was subjective. The many different forms and historical contexts may further have resulted in this book's being a bit choppy and uneven in places. But Johnson's point was to show the wide variety of way in which human beings can make a heroic difference and that human beings make history--not the "dialectical forces of materialism." People with 1) independence of mind coming from thinking through things by themselves and not accepting whatever the ruling conventional wisdom holds, 2) resolution to act once one's mind is made up, 3) rejecting anything the lazy media "throws at you, provided you remain convinced you are doing right, and 4) to "act with personal courage at all times, regardless of the consequences to yourself."
This is a very dense book, but one which follows the above thread consistently and as always for Paul Johnson, provocatively.
March 4, 2024
I love reading anything by Paul Johnson. Modern Times is my all-time favorite history book, yet I see excellence in all his works.
Among Johnson’s many qualities — stylistic flair and copious research being two of them — it is his retelling of biographies that I most consistently relish. This book is steep in such human tapestry as the masterful biographer demonstrates the essence of heroism through a fascinating collection of diverse individuals.
Sometimes the lives Johnson proposes as exemplars surprises me. He openly describes them as flawed persons and it is such authenticity that helps shield the book from any simplistic hagiography. Furthermore, this realistic probing of the human spirit liberates the work from much of today’s deconstructionist tendencies that seem to require perfection from all public role models. What the reader ends up with is a powerful message that greatness can be seen even among the brokenness of our world — a truly inspiring thought in such a cynical age.
Among Johnson’s many qualities — stylistic flair and copious research being two of them — it is his retelling of biographies that I most consistently relish. This book is steep in such human tapestry as the masterful biographer demonstrates the essence of heroism through a fascinating collection of diverse individuals.
Sometimes the lives Johnson proposes as exemplars surprises me. He openly describes them as flawed persons and it is such authenticity that helps shield the book from any simplistic hagiography. Furthermore, this realistic probing of the human spirit liberates the work from much of today’s deconstructionist tendencies that seem to require perfection from all public role models. What the reader ends up with is a powerful message that greatness can be seen even among the brokenness of our world — a truly inspiring thought in such a cynical age.
July 5, 2018
I think he admits to the somewhat arbitrary nature of his selections, but they're all entertaining and captivating portraits of truly fascinating people. I like the way he illustrates the contemporary nature of Henry V of England and Joan of Arc, two people I don't always think about in the same turn. One of my favorite Paul Johnson books, maybe his best besides the History of the Jews and Intellectuals.
September 3, 2014
Me gusto mucho, muy bien documentado, se hace un poco pesado por la cantidad de información que presenta; y a veces cuando habla de ciertos personajes, lo hace como si ya supiéramos quienes son, y si no lo sabemos se dificulta la lectura.
September 24, 2017
Quick,yet insightful and personal
Paul gives a face and heart to some of recent history's key figures through unexpected perseal encounters, behind the scenes as it were. Coupled with fresh narrative of the familiar, larger than life Great Names, it makes a welcome read.
Paul gives a face and heart to some of recent history's key figures through unexpected perseal encounters, behind the scenes as it were. Coupled with fresh narrative of the familiar, larger than life Great Names, it makes a welcome read.
January 6, 2020
Anyone's choices for heroes will probably not match with anybody else's if you sit down, think about it and then need to narrow it down. I enjoyed the choices and his reasoning behind it while uncovering facts I didn't know before. A nice book!
May 5, 2021
Who are your heroes? This is certainly an interesting collection. First half of the book worked better for me as history. The second half with its much more personal connections to the individuals was insightful in places but started to feel like a political lecture.
August 11, 2018
It was so easy to get annoyed with this book that I was actively trying not to, so I could get more out of it. This book is a collection of some very notable characters, and a couple extremely mediocre ones. Mostly, it is a collection of people the author either met, saw in person, or otherwise give him an excuse to namedrop (this reaches a truly annoying level in the section on Margaret Thatcher). Having said that, there are some fascinating insights into people I wouldn't have otherwise read about (like Robert E. Lee, Mae West and Wittgenstein).
Still, I'm still not sure what exactly his criteria for a "hero" was, but stating that "Women have had few opportunities to play heroic roles", and then using that as an excuse to feature Lady Pamela Berry (she's a hostess, btw. As in, someone who hosted parties), seems like a lame excuse to feature a personal acquaintance. Not even any mention of, say, Florence Nightingale, Emilie du Chatelet, Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Hatshepsut? Instead, he featured women like Mae West, Marilyn Monroe, and the hostess (even there, why not Madame de Stael, which is probably the only "hostess" people readily think of?). Although his section on Boudica was fascinating.
I haven't read his other books (Intellectuals or Creators), but I kept thinking of people I thought he should have included but didn't. First of all, it was very Euro-American centric. No Confucius or Genghis Khan, but rather Alexander the Great and King David. Still though, no mention of Martin Luther King, Augustus, Davinci or even Gandhi? Also, Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha weren't among his chosen heroes.
Regardless, the people he does mention are (almost) all fascinating in their own right, and he certainly knows a lot about them. And even his namedropping often includes interesting anecdotes.
Some of my notes:
"Pelest" in Ancient Egyptian means Sea Peoples (Root of Palestine and Philistines)
Roman republic was a sham. Caesar destroyed nothing but exposed everything
Was it Seneca's fault that Rome lost Britain? Cassius Dio says so
No heir apparent has ever become a good king (except with childhood adversity)
The ideal society in More's Utopia is not unlike the society in Orwell's 1984.
George Washington's main gripe with King George was the limit to westward expansion (is this true??)
Lincoln seemingly had no weaknesses
Robert E. Lee wasn't necessarily pro-slavery (he thought it damaged both whites and blacks), but joined for VA (state's rights), but the South being a confederacy meant no strong national leadership-> its downfall.
Thatcher was the first UK leader since Churchill to have worldwide influence.
Such a weird quote: "But Pinochet remains a hero to me because I know the facts"
Still, if you want a book on Heroes, check out "Heroes of History" by Will Durant. An excellent book by a superb historian.
3 stars
Still, I'm still not sure what exactly his criteria for a "hero" was, but stating that "Women have had few opportunities to play heroic roles", and then using that as an excuse to feature Lady Pamela Berry (she's a hostess, btw. As in, someone who hosted parties), seems like a lame excuse to feature a personal acquaintance. Not even any mention of, say, Florence Nightingale, Emilie du Chatelet, Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Hatshepsut? Instead, he featured women like Mae West, Marilyn Monroe, and the hostess (even there, why not Madame de Stael, which is probably the only "hostess" people readily think of?). Although his section on Boudica was fascinating.
I haven't read his other books (Intellectuals or Creators), but I kept thinking of people I thought he should have included but didn't. First of all, it was very Euro-American centric. No Confucius or Genghis Khan, but rather Alexander the Great and King David. Still though, no mention of Martin Luther King, Augustus, Davinci or even Gandhi? Also, Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha weren't among his chosen heroes.
Regardless, the people he does mention are (almost) all fascinating in their own right, and he certainly knows a lot about them. And even his namedropping often includes interesting anecdotes.
Some of my notes:
"Pelest" in Ancient Egyptian means Sea Peoples (Root of Palestine and Philistines)
Roman republic was a sham. Caesar destroyed nothing but exposed everything
Was it Seneca's fault that Rome lost Britain? Cassius Dio says so
No heir apparent has ever become a good king (except with childhood adversity)
The ideal society in More's Utopia is not unlike the society in Orwell's 1984.
George Washington's main gripe with King George was the limit to westward expansion (is this true??)
Lincoln seemingly had no weaknesses
Robert E. Lee wasn't necessarily pro-slavery (he thought it damaged both whites and blacks), but joined for VA (state's rights), but the South being a confederacy meant no strong national leadership-> its downfall.
Thatcher was the first UK leader since Churchill to have worldwide influence.
Such a weird quote: "But Pinochet remains a hero to me because I know the facts"
Still, if you want a book on Heroes, check out "Heroes of History" by Will Durant. An excellent book by a superb historian.
3 stars
May 7, 2023
The late Paul Johnson, a conservative English historian and journalist, wrote on a great many topics and a great many famous people. In this 2007 book, he combines his thoughts about many of the great leaders and important people he has written about - selecting some to be heroes. As the title indicates they include many military and national leaders (Alexander, Julius Caesar, Churchill, de Gaulle, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee). He seems most at home writing about English monarchs and leaders (4 chapters that cover many heroes and quite a bit of English history).
He covers a wide range of people, from Deborah, Judith, Samson and King David in the Old Testament to some of the martyrs of the New Testament - Stephen, Peter and Paul. Women make a big showing as heroes too. In addition to the Old Testament women he writes about Boudica (look her up - a very interesting story of rebellion against Rome), Joan of Arc, Jane Gray, Mary Stuart, Elizabeth I as well as Lady Pamela Barry, Mae West and Marilyn Monroe.
In more recent times, he credits Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II as the heroes who helped to dismantle the Soviet Union.
All in all, this was a very enlightening, educational and interesting book.
He covers a wide range of people, from Deborah, Judith, Samson and King David in the Old Testament to some of the martyrs of the New Testament - Stephen, Peter and Paul. Women make a big showing as heroes too. In addition to the Old Testament women he writes about Boudica (look her up - a very interesting story of rebellion against Rome), Joan of Arc, Jane Gray, Mary Stuart, Elizabeth I as well as Lady Pamela Barry, Mae West and Marilyn Monroe.
In more recent times, he credits Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II as the heroes who helped to dismantle the Soviet Union.
All in all, this was a very enlightening, educational and interesting book.
December 10, 2023
Me gustó mucho aunque lo leí como una enciclopedia; fui yendo y viniendo de biografías que más me interesaban a las que menos. Coincido con quienes le critican que la elección de los héroes es caprichosa y polémica en varios casos. Pero esta crítica no disminuye la calidad de los textos que son realmente muy buenos. No solamente está muy bien escrito sino que además las anécdotas que selecciona porque las biografías son breves, son muy interesantes y entretenidas y se recuerdan con facilidad, los personajes son humanizados y no tontamente idealizados y despliega conocimientos profundos y obtenidos de diversas fuentes. Es cierto que el libro está plagado de opiniones personales y puede resultar arrogante que Johnson aproveche toda ocasión de mencionar que conoció a alguno de estos héroes (Churchill, Wittgenstein, De Gaulle) pero a mí me gustó ese toque personal en las biografías. Hay algunas excelentes, muy superiores al resto; la de Wittgenstein, Alejandro Magno, Juana de Arco), algunas sobre personalidades que desconocía totalmente y que me encantaron (Jane Welsh Carlyle) y algunas miradas originales sobre personajes archi conocidos como Enrique V. Acabo de leer que Paul Johnson murió en enero del 23. Confieso que no lo conocía y ha sido una grata aunque tardía sorpresa.
August 23, 2024
This is a terrible book! It is much worse than my critical review. I think it is the worst book I have read this year. What comes to mind when you think of a hero? Probably either a person who courageously performs a feat that is somewhat noble or a person of character who stands against some evil. Some of those kinds of people make it into this book but as you read along the inclusion of others is ludicrous. Here are some examples:
Jane Carlyle: who chose to marry a difficult person and then appears to have become like him. How is that heroic?
Emily Dickinson: who instead of facing her fears (wouldn't that be heroic?) appears to be controlled by them and lives almost all of her life in a kind of isolation.
Wittgenstein: who despite bad behavior wrote a little book that no one can understand and thus became a hero.
Pamela Berry: who is a hero because she threw parties for certain influential figures. She is a hero even though he seems to acknowledge that she herself questioned if it was worth it.
I could go on but you get the point. This is a terrible book, worse than my review. So, you ask, why did you keep reading?
To quote one of my brothers "I ain't no quitter" and I needed the GR stats.
Jane Carlyle: who chose to marry a difficult person and then appears to have become like him. How is that heroic?
Emily Dickinson: who instead of facing her fears (wouldn't that be heroic?) appears to be controlled by them and lives almost all of her life in a kind of isolation.
Wittgenstein: who despite bad behavior wrote a little book that no one can understand and thus became a hero.
Pamela Berry: who is a hero because she threw parties for certain influential figures. She is a hero even though he seems to acknowledge that she herself questioned if it was worth it.
I could go on but you get the point. This is a terrible book, worse than my review. So, you ask, why did you keep reading?
To quote one of my brothers "I ain't no quitter" and I needed the GR stats.
June 27, 2017
I have given this book 4 stars because I liked the Author's style and description of his heroes. Obviously he has done his home work. My grouse is with his selection of heroes. Some of them are pretty strange based on his own criteria, while some are contrary to recently received wisdom. For example, General Pinochet, a universally reviled villain is considered a hero by him. There are four standards laid down by him. First, 'absolute independence of mind; second, resolute and consistent with action; third, courage of conviction; fourth, courage. There is no reason to cavil at this and I wish he had included a moral centre which sets an example. His bias towards English personalities is understandable but for the life of me I have not understood why Lady Jane Grey is a hero under any circumstance. He is also effusive about Churchill but again recent revelations show him to be not such an embodiment of heroism, especially in India. Hitchens and Tharoor have definitely negative things to say about him. There are other strange selections. Nevertheless, I recommend the book be read because some descriptions of his heroes are most apt and worth remembering
January 25, 2021
I am a big fan of Paul Johnson, this book is a great overview of what he considers Heroes. Very much his personal views and for me quite interesting. The one for whom he changed my thinking the most was Henry V followed by De Gaulle. Both in great part because I had heard of them but did not know much about them and so had fairly skewed ideas. I learned plenty, as usual mostly how little I know!
He does expect you to know quite a bit about them since these are short sketches. This has reinforced my desire to read more about the Greeks this year. He does talk about how warriors are the ones that the histories tend to declare heroes, but often they are the locus of great suffering and disaster. He deviates from this view and also does a good job of focusing on the heroic role women have often played, including in the old testament. Great read.
He does expect you to know quite a bit about them since these are short sketches. This has reinforced my desire to read more about the Greeks this year. He does talk about how warriors are the ones that the histories tend to declare heroes, but often they are the locus of great suffering and disaster. He deviates from this view and also does a good job of focusing on the heroic role women have often played, including in the old testament. Great read.
January 31, 2024
This was enjoyable up until the point when the "heroes" were alive during Paul Johnson's life, and then it feels like he started including them because he'd met them and wanted to include his personal interactions with them as an anecdote rather than through a true measure of their virtue or historical impact. He substitutes fame for heroism. I feel this particularly strongly about his selection of Marilyn Monroe as a heroine, who—after recounting her difficult childhood, her lack of control over her own life and career trajectory, and less than professional behavior in her career—he only seemed to include because "the camera loved her." I have nothing against Monroe or the women he chose who were heroes for their power in being "hostesses", but I can think of a few dozen heroic women that seem obvious to include at the top of the list instead.
August 4, 2023
3.25 // Worth a Glance. Heroes tried to do too much. Too many historical figures, forced into too little space (note to self: next time, UberXL). Each hero, which Johnson’s qualifications for who got in was somewhat puzzling, was limited to about seven pages each, don’t quote me on that. There were some great insights on some key figures throughout history. Notables that come to mind, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc, Emily Dickinson, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, but not enough time to make any real impact. Due to space, obviously key moments were cherry picked and key events left on the cutting room floor.
Now moving on to Paul Johnson’s “Socrates: A Man for Our Time” for a bit more breathing room. 27b23
Say hello on IG @jux.booksbinge or @nonfictionfervor
Now moving on to Paul Johnson’s “Socrates: A Man for Our Time” for a bit more breathing room. 27b23
Say hello on IG @jux.booksbinge or @nonfictionfervor
August 23, 2020
This was a wonderful little book. It is, basically, a series of short essays by the author on a smattering of historical figures whom he has identified as being heroic. I’m some figures I knew already but found my knowledge of them increased. Delightfully, there were some figures whom I’d never heard of and became acquainted with for the first time. Johnson does a good job balancing male and female heroes, which I appreciated and learned a lot from.
On a somewhat more jovial note, Johnson strikes me as being the inspiration for Rowling’s Professor Slughorn. I have never heard an author drop so many names before. I found it highly entertaining.
On a somewhat more jovial note, Johnson strikes me as being the inspiration for Rowling’s Professor Slughorn. I have never heard an author drop so many names before. I found it highly entertaining.
November 14, 2021
Éste me resultó el menos interesante de la trilogía de Johnson (las pocas marcas que hice en varios capítulos lo dejan en evidencia). Al ser bastante miscelánea la selección de personajes aparecen un papá, políticos de distintos tiempos y perfiles que me interesaron poco. La primera parte más histórica la leí intermitente pero sí me interesaron los capítulos que son de escritores y artistas, que es lo que me había gustado del primer libro. Destaco especialmente el capítulo acerca de Wittgenstein que me pareció excelente y ayudó a que me abriera un mundo maravilloso y también el que junta a Mae West y Marilyn Monroe.
December 24, 2019
This was an enlightening read, if little more than a collection of short biographies. Johnson's choices are interesting: the Old testament judge Deborah, British rebel leader Boudica, Mae West, in addition to the usual suspects: Caesar, Alexander, Churchill, etc. I learned a good amount about people I already knew a lot about, and was fascinated by people I didn't know much about: Horatio Nelson, Wellington, De Gaulle. Johnson has a rich manner of narrating history, and I'll definitely read more from him.
May 28, 2025
In a similar vein to his short biographies, these are even shorter. Some are more interesting than others. The entire book is loosely tied together via what Johnson believes to be heroes. His definition of a hero is broad and wide. I found that to be the most interesting.
I suggest readers pick up the book and skip around, only reading the short biographies of figures they are interested in. The Bible characters were especially interesting. That said, I found the range of interest to be pretty wide.
I suggest readers pick up the book and skip around, only reading the short biographies of figures they are interested in. The Bible characters were especially interesting. That said, I found the range of interest to be pretty wide.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews