What do you think?
Rate this book
The Forgotten Founding Father: Noah Webster's Obsession and the Creation of an American Culture
Noah Webster's name is now synonymous with the dictionary he created, but his story is not nearly so ubiquitous. Webster hobnobbed with various Founding Fathers and was a young confidant of George Washington and Ben Franklin. He started America's first daily newspaper, predating Alexander Hamilton's New York Post. His "blue-backed speller" for schoolchildren sold millions of copies and influenced early copyright law. But perhaps most important, Webster was an ardent supporter of a unified, definitively American culture, distinct from the British, at a time when the United States of America were anything but unified - and his dictionary of American English is a testament to that.
©2010 Joshua Kendall (P)2011 Penguin
©2010 Joshua Kendall (P)2011 Penguin
355 pages, Audiobook
First published April 14, 2011
93 people are currently reading
1166 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews
July 28, 2025
All too often, the terms “Founder” or “Founding Father” are used indiscreetly and ambiguously to describe any person of standing that inhabited North America during the late eighteenth century. More specifically, this label at times even attaches to individuals who were acquainted with: a given signer of the Declaration of Independence, those who actively played a role in the Revolutionary War effort, or took part in the Constitutional Convention. Joshua Kendall has written an appealing biography on Noah Webster, whom some would consider to be one of the world’s greatest lexicographers, yet he boldly puts him with the likes of such Founders as Jefferson, Greene, Rush, Paine, Washington, and Adams—which is a gross misunderstanding.
While forgotten to history indeed, Webster was a resourceful businessman through and through, whom took his profits to new heights in becoming a traveling salesman for his own dictionary. In a unique and groundbreaking approach, Webster wanted to add American dialect to the English language in order to distinguish and contrast it from that of its British counterpart. Kendall takes us through a chronological history of the lexicographer’s life—where Webster is always an onlooker to pivotal events of the Revolutionary War and Constitutional Convention—but never actually takes part in the battles or debates themselves. Along the way he shows time and time again the (perhaps OCD-like) neurotic behaviors and eccentricities of a man obsessed with human language and vocabulary:
To arrive at a definitive answer, Webster gathered four sets of data, which he presented in chart form. Each one was a bill of mortality for a famous group of writers—those from ancient Greece, ancient Rome, modern Europe and England. For the Greek and Roman authors, Webster mentioned the age and year of death. While the Greek list featured the great philosophers and scribes of the age—Plato, Socrates, Thales, Euripides and the like—it also included some obscure names such as Xenophilius, who was placed at the top because he supposedly had lived to the age of 169.
As noted previously, beyond being acquainted with and providing a few letters to some of the esteemed men mentioned, Noah Webster’s story is by all regards not relevant to the birth of the American Republic. Kendall proves Webster was unquestionably a stalwart thinker of massive ego and intellect, but the fact of the matter is that the title is simply inaccurate. Indeed, Kendall has effectively pointed out all of Webster’s contributions to the American lexicon, however—tabling the "Founder" label to the side—it’s quite a stretch to claim that Webster held a substantial place in creating the culture of the American Yankee. While the book itself is well-written and comes complete with illustrations, at times it can come off as slow for those uninterested in the field of lexicography.
While forgotten to history indeed, Webster was a resourceful businessman through and through, whom took his profits to new heights in becoming a traveling salesman for his own dictionary. In a unique and groundbreaking approach, Webster wanted to add American dialect to the English language in order to distinguish and contrast it from that of its British counterpart. Kendall takes us through a chronological history of the lexicographer’s life—where Webster is always an onlooker to pivotal events of the Revolutionary War and Constitutional Convention—but never actually takes part in the battles or debates themselves. Along the way he shows time and time again the (perhaps OCD-like) neurotic behaviors and eccentricities of a man obsessed with human language and vocabulary:
To arrive at a definitive answer, Webster gathered four sets of data, which he presented in chart form. Each one was a bill of mortality for a famous group of writers—those from ancient Greece, ancient Rome, modern Europe and England. For the Greek and Roman authors, Webster mentioned the age and year of death. While the Greek list featured the great philosophers and scribes of the age—Plato, Socrates, Thales, Euripides and the like—it also included some obscure names such as Xenophilius, who was placed at the top because he supposedly had lived to the age of 169.
As noted previously, beyond being acquainted with and providing a few letters to some of the esteemed men mentioned, Noah Webster’s story is by all regards not relevant to the birth of the American Republic. Kendall proves Webster was unquestionably a stalwart thinker of massive ego and intellect, but the fact of the matter is that the title is simply inaccurate. Indeed, Kendall has effectively pointed out all of Webster’s contributions to the American lexicon, however—tabling the "Founder" label to the side—it’s quite a stretch to claim that Webster held a substantial place in creating the culture of the American Yankee. While the book itself is well-written and comes complete with illustrations, at times it can come off as slow for those uninterested in the field of lexicography.
October 18, 2022
In his book, The Forgotten Founder, journalist Joshua Kendall brings to center stage the life of Noah Webster, a name that for most conjures up thoughts of the dictionary that bears his name. However, as the title suggests, Kendall believes that Webster contributed more than just a book of definitions to American culture, going as far as to label him a “forgotten” Founding Father.
This is a rather lofty claim. While Webster did have routine contact and communication with several prominent members of the Constitutional Convention such as George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, Webster himself was not a member of the Convention, and thus had no sway over the drafting of the US Constitution, which by definition of the term Founding Father, technically bars him from obtaining the title.
Kendall does not offer his own interpretation of the term Founding Father, a term most used to describe a member of the US Constitutional Convention, and so his claim goes rather unsubstantiated throughout the book.
Kendall does succeed in portraying Webster in a balanced way. While it is clear that Kendall himself is an admirer of Webster, he does not allow himself to slip into hagiography. Webster was a man obsessed with himself, his work, and his image. Thoroughly insecure and self-conscious, he needed a constant deluge of affirmation from others in order to keep afloat. In a world of uncertainty, Webster found his safe haven within the world of lexicography, a world in which there could be perfect order and certainty that he could control.
Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, a sprawling 70,000 words once completed, represented a new variant of the English language, one that was in all ways American. Webster was a champion for spelling reform, and so introduced many of the differences we know today between the spelling of British English and American English words, which created a distinct divide between the two languages.
The Forgotten Founder is a detailed read, often going into much depth on the subject of lexicography, and the definition process, which may be somewhat overwhelming for the general reader. However, for those with an interest in lexicography, much lexicographical history is presented. Webster spent much of his life obsessed with his work, and that obsession is duly reflected in this book. While occasionally leaning towards repetition, for those wanting to better understand the man who has all but slipped into myth and obscurity, The Forgotten Founder is an excellent book to turn to.
This is a rather lofty claim. While Webster did have routine contact and communication with several prominent members of the Constitutional Convention such as George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, Webster himself was not a member of the Convention, and thus had no sway over the drafting of the US Constitution, which by definition of the term Founding Father, technically bars him from obtaining the title.
Kendall does not offer his own interpretation of the term Founding Father, a term most used to describe a member of the US Constitutional Convention, and so his claim goes rather unsubstantiated throughout the book.
Kendall does succeed in portraying Webster in a balanced way. While it is clear that Kendall himself is an admirer of Webster, he does not allow himself to slip into hagiography. Webster was a man obsessed with himself, his work, and his image. Thoroughly insecure and self-conscious, he needed a constant deluge of affirmation from others in order to keep afloat. In a world of uncertainty, Webster found his safe haven within the world of lexicography, a world in which there could be perfect order and certainty that he could control.
Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, a sprawling 70,000 words once completed, represented a new variant of the English language, one that was in all ways American. Webster was a champion for spelling reform, and so introduced many of the differences we know today between the spelling of British English and American English words, which created a distinct divide between the two languages.
The Forgotten Founder is a detailed read, often going into much depth on the subject of lexicography, and the definition process, which may be somewhat overwhelming for the general reader. However, for those with an interest in lexicography, much lexicographical history is presented. Webster spent much of his life obsessed with his work, and that obsession is duly reflected in this book. While occasionally leaning towards repetition, for those wanting to better understand the man who has all but slipped into myth and obscurity, The Forgotten Founder is an excellent book to turn to.
June 1, 2011
(full review appears at the Washington Independent Review of Books)
I don’t like Noah Webster. He’s arrogant and antisocial. He’s obsessive-compulsive and anal-retentive. He’s a shameless self-promoter, a notorious griper and, later in life, a pious blowhard. And as Joshua Kendall shows us in his fine biography Forgotten Founding Father, those were exactly the kinds of traits that made Noah Webster so good at what he did. Indeed, as a compulsive compiler and hunter and gatherer of information, Webster was of the ideal temperament to organize the first uniquely American dictionary — and America, argues Kendall, is all the better for it.
Even before his famous dictionary, Webster’s obsession with words rocketed him to national fame, while only his mid-20s, with his hugely successful American Spelling Book. Webster marketed his work masterfully, figuring out how to secure laudatory blurbs from all the right people, offering bulk discounts and promoting shamelessly by booking speaking engagements for himself in which he openly bad-mouthed the competition. Calling for a “uniformity and purity of language — to add superiority to this infant empire and to human nature,” Webster’s speller was, as Kendall artfully describes it, “a linguistic declaration of independence.” American English — though it took some time before Webster would call it that — would become Webster’s lifelong obsession.
To Webster, language mattered. It was as closely aligned with a nation’s sense of identity as the country’s chosen form of government or the foods its citizens ate (indeed, Webster would privately sneer at the overtly European cuisine Andrew Jackson served during Webster’s visit to the White House). It’s almost quaint to read how angry our forebears could get arguing over spelling and grammar. Is “boating” a word? What about that pesky extra “u” in words like “honour” and “labour”? Did profanity have a place in the dictionary? These were serious matters for serious debate, and Webster was never one to turn from a fight, though the term “respectfully disagree” seems as foreign to Webster as the food in Jackson’s White House. Webster can’t just disagree with opponents, he has to disparage them as well, spraying even the much-admired Samuel Johnson in his crossfire as he defends his own contributions to lexicography— a tactic that ruffled even Webster’s supporters.
Still, it’s tough to grumble about him too much, for Webster, for the most part, picked the right fights. He demanded American English for and by Americans. And he appreciated early on that the American language needed to be inherently flexible, allowing for new words to be added as the language required — “without a license from Englishmen,” he stressed. To this day, in fact, it still makes national news when new words like “blogosphere” or “chick flick” are formally incorporated into the dictionary. (Oddly, despite this aggressive stance, Webster himself would create only one new word, “demoralizing,” which, given his temperament, seems like just the kind of word he would coin.)
I still don’t like Noah Webster, but in Kendall’s hands, Webster’s faults, obsessions and abrasive personality become part of his strangely compelling charm. Kendall is deft at pointing out the little details that the perpetually obsessive Webster couldn’t help but incorporate into his endless lists — an attention to details that makes Webster eye-rollingly endearing. When compiling a list of the number and causes of death in London in April 1788, for instance, the very thorough Webster deems it necessary to inform readers that the number of deaths attributed to “Bit by mad dog” is exactly zero.
Later, when Webster, who fancied himself an expert in etymology, begins making sweeping and ultimately incorrect statements on the origins of words, we can’t help but admire his colossal nerve. When talent isn’t enough, Webster always gets by on sheer perseverance alone. Founding Father or not, what can be more quintessentially American than that?
I don’t like Noah Webster. He’s arrogant and antisocial. He’s obsessive-compulsive and anal-retentive. He’s a shameless self-promoter, a notorious griper and, later in life, a pious blowhard. And as Joshua Kendall shows us in his fine biography Forgotten Founding Father, those were exactly the kinds of traits that made Noah Webster so good at what he did. Indeed, as a compulsive compiler and hunter and gatherer of information, Webster was of the ideal temperament to organize the first uniquely American dictionary — and America, argues Kendall, is all the better for it.
Even before his famous dictionary, Webster’s obsession with words rocketed him to national fame, while only his mid-20s, with his hugely successful American Spelling Book. Webster marketed his work masterfully, figuring out how to secure laudatory blurbs from all the right people, offering bulk discounts and promoting shamelessly by booking speaking engagements for himself in which he openly bad-mouthed the competition. Calling for a “uniformity and purity of language — to add superiority to this infant empire and to human nature,” Webster’s speller was, as Kendall artfully describes it, “a linguistic declaration of independence.” American English — though it took some time before Webster would call it that — would become Webster’s lifelong obsession.
To Webster, language mattered. It was as closely aligned with a nation’s sense of identity as the country’s chosen form of government or the foods its citizens ate (indeed, Webster would privately sneer at the overtly European cuisine Andrew Jackson served during Webster’s visit to the White House). It’s almost quaint to read how angry our forebears could get arguing over spelling and grammar. Is “boating” a word? What about that pesky extra “u” in words like “honour” and “labour”? Did profanity have a place in the dictionary? These were serious matters for serious debate, and Webster was never one to turn from a fight, though the term “respectfully disagree” seems as foreign to Webster as the food in Jackson’s White House. Webster can’t just disagree with opponents, he has to disparage them as well, spraying even the much-admired Samuel Johnson in his crossfire as he defends his own contributions to lexicography— a tactic that ruffled even Webster’s supporters.
Still, it’s tough to grumble about him too much, for Webster, for the most part, picked the right fights. He demanded American English for and by Americans. And he appreciated early on that the American language needed to be inherently flexible, allowing for new words to be added as the language required — “without a license from Englishmen,” he stressed. To this day, in fact, it still makes national news when new words like “blogosphere” or “chick flick” are formally incorporated into the dictionary. (Oddly, despite this aggressive stance, Webster himself would create only one new word, “demoralizing,” which, given his temperament, seems like just the kind of word he would coin.)
I still don’t like Noah Webster, but in Kendall’s hands, Webster’s faults, obsessions and abrasive personality become part of his strangely compelling charm. Kendall is deft at pointing out the little details that the perpetually obsessive Webster couldn’t help but incorporate into his endless lists — an attention to details that makes Webster eye-rollingly endearing. When compiling a list of the number and causes of death in London in April 1788, for instance, the very thorough Webster deems it necessary to inform readers that the number of deaths attributed to “Bit by mad dog” is exactly zero.
Later, when Webster, who fancied himself an expert in etymology, begins making sweeping and ultimately incorrect statements on the origins of words, we can’t help but admire his colossal nerve. When talent isn’t enough, Webster always gets by on sheer perseverance alone. Founding Father or not, what can be more quintessentially American than that?
April 15, 2012
It's refreshing to read a biography of someone who isn't well known to the general reader. This book brings alive the world of New England from the period of the revolution through the 1840s, giving us a sense of how a life could unfold throughout that period. Webster was involved with most of the people who shaped America's government and culture throughout his lifetime, and of course, he too ended up in their number.
What keeps me from giving this book 5 stars is that Kendall did not support the many statements he made about Webster's mental state, particularly the idea that he wrote his books under the influence of a mental condition Kendall labels as an illness. He also harps on a Freudian theme--that Webster's relationship with his father was the origin of many of his behaviors--that is not supported by the facts he presents in this book.
Indeed, though the author keeps telling us that Webster is a terrible parent, the affection of his children and the extent to which they stayed engaged with him after attaining adulthood argues against this. This was, after all, a period in which large numbers of New Englanders headed out West--a great way of leaving behind disagreeable relatives. That so many Webster children stuck around as adults suggests Webster was a far better parent than the author would have you believe.
Webster's childraising style was completely within the traditions of the New England Calvinism of his time. I get the feeling that Kendall isn't as familiar with biographies of other people raised in that culture as he might be. Webster's family life was refreshingly free of the religiously-spurred terror and self-hatred that diaries of New England Calvinist contemporaries display. When his possibly autistic child displayed an overwhelming fear of hell, it was treated as a mental illness issue and a cause for concern, not an appropriate religious response. This would not have been true in some stricter Calvinist homes at the time.
Webster struck me, in fact, as being less harsh than many other parents of his generation, and one wonders to what extent the language of his letters, which the author cites to prove his coldness and authoritarianism as a parent, may have been written to live up to the standards of the day rather than being a reflection of what really went on in the Webster home.
It's also currently fashionable to give diagnoses for what any other generation would consider normal behavior. But the only evidence that the author gives us that Webster was mentally abnormal was that he liked to collect statistical information and spent much time working alone in a soundproofed room. If I lived with 7 children, one of whom was autistic, my study, too, would be soundproofed. That seems to me to be Yankee practicality, not mental illness.
The collecting of trivia only becomes a mental illness when it makes it impossible for the person to live a productive, happy life. Webster's phenomenal productivity and the degree to which he was involved with others throughout his life argues against that. His attempts to collect information of the kind now found in every Almanac seems to be just a bit ahead of his time. By the 1840s that kind of quantifying and classifying was widespread among educated people, especially those who interested themselves in science. He had a very precise mind, yes, and a love of detail that made his name live even until the present day.
It does no one any good to define that as a mental illness. Let's save that definition for conditions that make it impossible for people to live full, active, productive and satisfying lives. That Webster was still working on publishable work until shortly before his death in his mid 80s is a testament to the fact that he had found the perfect work for his nature, a sign of a life very well-lived. If that's a mental illness, let's hope it's contagious.
That said, there's enough presented here for the reader to draw her or his own conclusions, which is the mark of a competent biography. This book is well worth reading for anyone interested in New England cultural history. Or for that matter, in the lives of people who only come into the fullness of their creativity in later life. If ever there was a late bloomer, it was Webster, but he bloomed brilliantly, and his life has a lot to teach us.
What keeps me from giving this book 5 stars is that Kendall did not support the many statements he made about Webster's mental state, particularly the idea that he wrote his books under the influence of a mental condition Kendall labels as an illness. He also harps on a Freudian theme--that Webster's relationship with his father was the origin of many of his behaviors--that is not supported by the facts he presents in this book.
Indeed, though the author keeps telling us that Webster is a terrible parent, the affection of his children and the extent to which they stayed engaged with him after attaining adulthood argues against this. This was, after all, a period in which large numbers of New Englanders headed out West--a great way of leaving behind disagreeable relatives. That so many Webster children stuck around as adults suggests Webster was a far better parent than the author would have you believe.
Webster's childraising style was completely within the traditions of the New England Calvinism of his time. I get the feeling that Kendall isn't as familiar with biographies of other people raised in that culture as he might be. Webster's family life was refreshingly free of the religiously-spurred terror and self-hatred that diaries of New England Calvinist contemporaries display. When his possibly autistic child displayed an overwhelming fear of hell, it was treated as a mental illness issue and a cause for concern, not an appropriate religious response. This would not have been true in some stricter Calvinist homes at the time.
Webster struck me, in fact, as being less harsh than many other parents of his generation, and one wonders to what extent the language of his letters, which the author cites to prove his coldness and authoritarianism as a parent, may have been written to live up to the standards of the day rather than being a reflection of what really went on in the Webster home.
It's also currently fashionable to give diagnoses for what any other generation would consider normal behavior. But the only evidence that the author gives us that Webster was mentally abnormal was that he liked to collect statistical information and spent much time working alone in a soundproofed room. If I lived with 7 children, one of whom was autistic, my study, too, would be soundproofed. That seems to me to be Yankee practicality, not mental illness.
The collecting of trivia only becomes a mental illness when it makes it impossible for the person to live a productive, happy life. Webster's phenomenal productivity and the degree to which he was involved with others throughout his life argues against that. His attempts to collect information of the kind now found in every Almanac seems to be just a bit ahead of his time. By the 1840s that kind of quantifying and classifying was widespread among educated people, especially those who interested themselves in science. He had a very precise mind, yes, and a love of detail that made his name live even until the present day.
It does no one any good to define that as a mental illness. Let's save that definition for conditions that make it impossible for people to live full, active, productive and satisfying lives. That Webster was still working on publishable work until shortly before his death in his mid 80s is a testament to the fact that he had found the perfect work for his nature, a sign of a life very well-lived. If that's a mental illness, let's hope it's contagious.
That said, there's enough presented here for the reader to draw her or his own conclusions, which is the mark of a competent biography. This book is well worth reading for anyone interested in New England cultural history. Or for that matter, in the lives of people who only come into the fullness of their creativity in later life. If ever there was a late bloomer, it was Webster, but he bloomed brilliantly, and his life has a lot to teach us.
March 24, 2022
If you were writing a historical murder mystery and for some reason needed to know Noah Webster's exact movements from October 16, 1758 to May 28, 1843, including who he had dinner with on May 29, 1786, what the weather was like, and how he was feeling about it, then this is the book for you.
As I was not writing a historical murder mystery (people Noah Webster might have murdered: Lindley Murray, Joseph Worcester, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson; reasons Noah Webster might have murdered them: having wrong ideas (i.e. disagreeing with him), being on the side of the French, or the English, enjoying the theatre and insisting on spelling it that way), I had very little use for it.
The prose is accessible enough and the book seems well researched—if a bit fawning—but the content is tedious. I don't know if that's Kendall's fault or Webster's. The man was, admittedly, a known drag. Webster came from Puritan stock and was arrogant, tended toward pedantry, and talked down to everyone around him. He had a high opinion of his opinions and was bad with people, but he hung out with all the big names of the era (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Aaron Burr, James Madison) and was a forerunner in the fields of census taking, copyright law, book tours, sock puppetry (in the modern sense; he was constantly responding to himself, and others, pseudonymously in the press), modern medical research, and American English. His Blue Back Speller helped popularize spelling bees. He was editor of the first daily paper in New York City. And of course we all know about his dictionary.
He was a busy dude and Kendall makes a strong case for Noah Webster as a (forgotten) founding father of this nation. I just wish his book wasn't so dry. I'm giving it two stars because at one point I just plain forgot I was reading it. But I've read worse, and in fact, Kendall makes a dig at Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman for leaving out that Dr. William Minor had actually done some paid work for the 1864 revision of Webster's Dictionary before he joined the Oxford English Dictionary effort as a volunteer. Despite its plodding nature and decided disinterest in providing complete dates for meaningful events (WHAT YEAR IS IT), it's a thorough portrait of who Noah Webster was as a man and if you desperately need to know about him and can't find any other way to do it, this will do the job.
Sources are listed in the back by chapter, but don't point to specific parts of the text, which is not my favorite way to handle citations. Black and white illustrations have descriptive captions in the text and are also sourced at the back. The index appears thorough, but at least one of the things I looked up gave the wrong page number.
Contains: ableism (both quoted and from the author); discussion of mental illness and developmental disabilities and some offensive framing for both; mentions of disordered eating; brief references to suicide and murder/suicide; epidemic (yellow fever).
As I was not writing a historical murder mystery (people Noah Webster might have murdered: Lindley Murray, Joseph Worcester, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson; reasons Noah Webster might have murdered them: having wrong ideas (i.e. disagreeing with him), being on the side of the French, or the English, enjoying the theatre and insisting on spelling it that way), I had very little use for it.
The prose is accessible enough and the book seems well researched—if a bit fawning—but the content is tedious. I don't know if that's Kendall's fault or Webster's. The man was, admittedly, a known drag. Webster came from Puritan stock and was arrogant, tended toward pedantry, and talked down to everyone around him. He had a high opinion of his opinions and was bad with people, but he hung out with all the big names of the era (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Aaron Burr, James Madison) and was a forerunner in the fields of census taking, copyright law, book tours, sock puppetry (in the modern sense; he was constantly responding to himself, and others, pseudonymously in the press), modern medical research, and American English. His Blue Back Speller helped popularize spelling bees. He was editor of the first daily paper in New York City. And of course we all know about his dictionary.
He was a busy dude and Kendall makes a strong case for Noah Webster as a (forgotten) founding father of this nation. I just wish his book wasn't so dry. I'm giving it two stars because at one point I just plain forgot I was reading it. But I've read worse, and in fact, Kendall makes a dig at Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman for leaving out that Dr. William Minor had actually done some paid work for the 1864 revision of Webster's Dictionary before he joined the Oxford English Dictionary effort as a volunteer. Despite its plodding nature and decided disinterest in providing complete dates for meaningful events (WHAT YEAR IS IT), it's a thorough portrait of who Noah Webster was as a man and if you desperately need to know about him and can't find any other way to do it, this will do the job.
Sources are listed in the back by chapter, but don't point to specific parts of the text, which is not my favorite way to handle citations. Black and white illustrations have descriptive captions in the text and are also sourced at the back. The index appears thorough, but at least one of the things I looked up gave the wrong page number.
Contains: ableism (both quoted and from the author); discussion of mental illness and developmental disabilities and some offensive framing for both; mentions of disordered eating; brief references to suicide and murder/suicide; epidemic (yellow fever).
June 4, 2012
Firstly, not every man who picked up a pen around the time of the American Revolution is a forgotten founding father. This is most certainly true of Noah Webster Jr. who may have been the 18th century equivalent of the crazy old man who calls the local news station everyday.
Secondly, this book was about as interesting as choosing between bisque and eggshell paint. While there were moments that piqued interest they couldn't be maintained.
Anyway, I hope my next non-fiction selection is better than this one. I've been disappointed by my selections of late.
Secondly, this book was about as interesting as choosing between bisque and eggshell paint. While there were moments that piqued interest they couldn't be maintained.
Anyway, I hope my next non-fiction selection is better than this one. I've been disappointed by my selections of late.
July 4, 2019
The story of Noah Webester is a bit boring, or this book about Noah Webster is a bit boring. Probvably a bit of both.
May 22, 2011
I have enjoyed reading biographies of founding fathers and mothers (John Adams by David McCullough; Benjamin Franklin, an American Life by Walter Isaacson; Founding Mothers, the Women Who Raised Our Nation by Cokie Roberts.) So I assumed I would find equal enjoyment in reading The Forgotten Founding Father, Noah Webster’s Obsession and the Creation of an American Culture. I did enjoy learning about this fascinating man who made amazing contributions to the growth of America as an independent nation. He did this in spite of, or maybe because of, personal and financial problems that caused him much anxiety and made him a difficult person to know. He was a man of contradictions, conservative in politics but also a champion of accepting the constant change of language; a gifted salesman and self-promoter of his books who invented the author’s book tour, but a loner and insufferable prig. He was a Yale graduate in the upper echelons of education, but he befriended the underclass and developed a forerunner of a social security system in Hartford, CT. He was also a charter member of Connecticut’s abolitionist society. He puzzled over the cause of Yellow Fever when it ravaged the population, and he developed the first scientific survey which led to modern medical research. He was a prolific writer on many subjects. His pamphlet urging the adoption of the U. S. Constitution was more influential than the Federalist Papers. He wrote frequent articles, educating, but more often admonishing, the public on whatever topic raised his ire at the time. He started the first newspaper in New York City. His spelling book for schools was an early success that led him to fight for a copyright law. Given all his contributions to American culture, it is ironic that today he is known only for his dictionary.
I felt bogged down at times with minutia from the author’s extensive research, and I can’t rank the book as highly as the biographies listed above. However I did feel compelled to read to the end to find out if this brilliant, success-driven man could ever achieve peace of mind.
I felt bogged down at times with minutia from the author’s extensive research, and I can’t rank the book as highly as the biographies listed above. However I did feel compelled to read to the end to find out if this brilliant, success-driven man could ever achieve peace of mind.
February 16, 2019
You learn a lot of detail of Webster’s life in this biography. Much of what you learn isn’t flattering to the dictionary scion. He comes across as a fellow who thinks he should always be the center of attention, and acts increasingly bizarrely when he feels he isn’t getting his due. He is obsessed with a series of things in his life, revolving around his books, magazines, and newspapers. These are initially aimed at literature-loving colonists, later becoming news and political organs and weapons of culture, championing the American way. Webster seems like the kind of person that you occasionally run into at parties, introduced by someone who quickly disappears, leaving you to figure out what you have. Personality-wise, he was kind of a loner post-revolutionary (war) Steve Jobs-type, who great thing was, in the end, language, specifically American English. He doesn’t appear to be the kind of person I personally would want as a friend.
You do learn a lot in this book about Webster’s times. The story of his Speller was quite interesting, involving burgeoning copyright laws and national publishing contracts which show that Webster could be a suave businessman on occasion. It just didn’t happen regularly, as he squanders his law career to be a publisher. With a large family, his need for money drove him, but not to the safest and most lucrative path. He was a culture warrior, 200 years ago. Interesting book of an interesting time with a not-so-likeable character.
You do learn a lot in this book about Webster’s times. The story of his Speller was quite interesting, involving burgeoning copyright laws and national publishing contracts which show that Webster could be a suave businessman on occasion. It just didn’t happen regularly, as he squanders his law career to be a publisher. With a large family, his need for money drove him, but not to the safest and most lucrative path. He was a culture warrior, 200 years ago. Interesting book of an interesting time with a not-so-likeable character.
January 28, 2015
This work was a significant disappointment. I approached it expecting to get a front row seat on the foundation of the creation of American culture through the words we use. I also expected to be able to appreciate a man so driven by a love for words and a love for his country that he undertook this as his life's labor.
It seems, much as I would wish it otherwise, that what drove Noah Webster to codify the language of his country was perpetual disdain for what he viewed as nonstandard English. This snobbish criticism didn't start or end with him, but it doesn't make for a pleasant animus to drive the completion of a biography. Once the author has established that Noah Webster was a crank, he seems to stay in that mode even when offering backhanded compliments, such as his accusation that Webster was more fluent in other languages and he was – because he only spoke for foreign languages.
Little jewels of etymology keep the pages turning, but seeing them woven into a story and into the creation and development of a unique people is something not within the scope of this work. For that, I may need to turn to a master storyteller like Bill Bryson.
It seems, much as I would wish it otherwise, that what drove Noah Webster to codify the language of his country was perpetual disdain for what he viewed as nonstandard English. This snobbish criticism didn't start or end with him, but it doesn't make for a pleasant animus to drive the completion of a biography. Once the author has established that Noah Webster was a crank, he seems to stay in that mode even when offering backhanded compliments, such as his accusation that Webster was more fluent in other languages and he was – because he only spoke for foreign languages.
Little jewels of etymology keep the pages turning, but seeing them woven into a story and into the creation and development of a unique people is something not within the scope of this work. For that, I may need to turn to a master storyteller like Bill Bryson.
January 11, 2020
An okay book on Noah Webster; perhaps best known for his dictionary was an important Federalist writer, several people that when he was writing Federalist tracks under a pseudonym that it was actually Alexander Hamilton.
Memorable quote is probably ‘Every instance of Vice weakens our aversion to it’
Memorable quote is probably ‘Every instance of Vice weakens our aversion to it’
August 20, 2021
Well-written and showing deep research, this book held my interest. I learned a lot not only about Webster but about life in the early Federal period. Webster was associated with nearly all the VIPs of his era, from Washington to Burr. His bristly personality and aggressive OCD made him an unusual man for his time. Despite all this, the book was rather dry and lacked the warmth and personality of a David McCullough biography.
November 8, 2024
“Just as Americans were debating what type of ruler they should have, they also were debating what language they should speak.”
September 6, 2011
I wish someone else had written this book. Kendall is a seriously flawed writer. He seems to have done a lot of research, but not enough in all areas. I think he made some broad conclusions about Webster's character (neurotic, ocd?)and influence (articulating "american culture" for the first time?) in order to start writing his book, but he doesn't support his conclusions. And he jumps around in time way too much!
Since I have so many ancestors who lived in New England at teh same time, I did find it interesting to read about the ways people traveled, lived, married, died, were educated, and found or changed their religious beliefs. Webster became a born-again Calvinist in the early 1800's, breaking off with the thinkers I find much more interesting, like Emerson and other Unitarians.
Since I have so many ancestors who lived in New England at teh same time, I did find it interesting to read about the ways people traveled, lived, married, died, were educated, and found or changed their religious beliefs. Webster became a born-again Calvinist in the early 1800's, breaking off with the thinkers I find much more interesting, like Emerson and other Unitarians.
November 6, 2014
Moderately interesting biography of America's chief lexicographer that's marred by an overestimation of his worth to the American Revolution.
At one point the author suggests that a the handful of articles Webster wrote in support of the new Constitution was more influential than The Federalist Papers. Such "puffery" abounds. What would/should have been a more straightforward biography of a man known for his dictionary instead becomes an attempt to align him with the Founders (when he was simply too young and not nearly as influential as Kendall tries to convey).
At one point the author suggests that a the handful of articles Webster wrote in support of the new Constitution was more influential than The Federalist Papers. Such "puffery" abounds. What would/should have been a more straightforward biography of a man known for his dictionary instead becomes an attempt to align him with the Founders (when he was simply too young and not nearly as influential as Kendall tries to convey).
February 28, 2019
I REALLY wanted to like this book. While it has great detail about his life, it’s offered in a dry, clinical, boring manner. It’s just a recitation of a timeline of facts with a lot of name-dropping. I honestly couldn’t even finish reading it.
September 4, 2013
DULL. Some parts were super interesting, but for the most part the author skips around in his narrative and just doesn't really have a gift for writing history, in my opinion.
January 31, 2014
Webster's habits provide insight into why he did things, as well as, why his children were as they were. Habitually counting & other habits (Aspergers, slight autism??).
April 30, 2019
My biggest gripe with this book, and it is not even a very big gripe, is the title. There are a great many forgotten founders, and Noah Webster is only one of them. This book definitely brings this obscure founder, remembered for those of us that think fondly of his dictionary, to the attention of contemporary readers. It doesn't hurt that the author, who has developed quite a reputation for writing about obsessives, is in his element when talking about Webster's life and its complexities. Besides his dictionary, Webster was an interesting man to read about, active in politics (at least during the early ages of the American republic) as well as in the desire to assist women in getting higher education, besides being a bit of a curmudgeon to those around him, and he lived a life that is certainly interesting enough to read about. If you like reading about obsessive but successful people who were not the easiest to live with, this book (and the author's other work) is certainly well worth recommending. It takes a special kind of person who be a compiler of information, and clearly Webster was that kind of person, for better and worse.
This book of more than 300 pages takes a generally chronological look through the life and achievements of Noah Webster, beginning (as is customary) in media res with Webster building a friendship with Washington and encouraging his help in building up American nationalism. And it is the project of American nationalism that the author spends a great deal of discussing, including Webster's pioneering work in encouraging an American approach to orthography and pronunciation, his rather shaky understanding of the history of words in English, and Webster's determination that America develop its own independent verbal culture apart from Great Britain. Throughout the discussion of Webster's writings (including a lost decade) there are commentaries about his occasional money problems, his marriage and relationship with his children, and the way he overcome his struggles with melancholy. There is even a discussion of the afterlife of Webster through his dictionary and its publishing history, although this is very brief. The author manages to do a good job at exploring the author's own personal writing (without the airbrushing of his family's hagiography) and also his personal life, which was full of problems with others, especially as he grew older and more rigid in his thinking.
This book, along with the others I have read from the author, prompts a serious question about the relationship between American society and mental illness. How is it that some people are able to find productive uses for mental illness that end up providing something worthwhile to society at large even if their own personal lives are often greatly harmed by virtue of their obsessiveness and melancholy, while many others are destroyed by their mental illness? To what extent is this a societal and to what extent is this an individual matter? To know that so much achievement in our society is the result of people whose mental health made their lives (and that of their families) difficult adds a strong sense of melancholy to this work and to the author's work as a whole. Knowing the upside of mental health, including obsessive-compulsive disorder, is certainly a good thing, but to celebrate the achievements that can come with mental illness includes a recognition of the toll that mental illness takes on people and on their loved ones, whether it is through a genetic burden or through the sort of experiences that happen when one has to deal with mental illness.
This book of more than 300 pages takes a generally chronological look through the life and achievements of Noah Webster, beginning (as is customary) in media res with Webster building a friendship with Washington and encouraging his help in building up American nationalism. And it is the project of American nationalism that the author spends a great deal of discussing, including Webster's pioneering work in encouraging an American approach to orthography and pronunciation, his rather shaky understanding of the history of words in English, and Webster's determination that America develop its own independent verbal culture apart from Great Britain. Throughout the discussion of Webster's writings (including a lost decade) there are commentaries about his occasional money problems, his marriage and relationship with his children, and the way he overcome his struggles with melancholy. There is even a discussion of the afterlife of Webster through his dictionary and its publishing history, although this is very brief. The author manages to do a good job at exploring the author's own personal writing (without the airbrushing of his family's hagiography) and also his personal life, which was full of problems with others, especially as he grew older and more rigid in his thinking.
This book, along with the others I have read from the author, prompts a serious question about the relationship between American society and mental illness. How is it that some people are able to find productive uses for mental illness that end up providing something worthwhile to society at large even if their own personal lives are often greatly harmed by virtue of their obsessiveness and melancholy, while many others are destroyed by their mental illness? To what extent is this a societal and to what extent is this an individual matter? To know that so much achievement in our society is the result of people whose mental health made their lives (and that of their families) difficult adds a strong sense of melancholy to this work and to the author's work as a whole. Knowing the upside of mental health, including obsessive-compulsive disorder, is certainly a good thing, but to celebrate the achievements that can come with mental illness includes a recognition of the toll that mental illness takes on people and on their loved ones, whether it is through a genetic burden or through the sort of experiences that happen when one has to deal with mental illness.
April 28, 2019
Most biographers of American "Founding Fathers" fawn over their heros. Here, reading this biography of Webster one has the distinct impression that the author hates him, but can't come right out and say it. Instead, throughout the book, Kendal damns Webster with faint praise interspersed with unsupported allegations that Webster was mentally ill. And when he wasn't trying to paint has ill, he attempts to paint him as a mean and humorless father. Kendall tells us that as he grew older, Webster became a political reactionary.
Yet, another picture comes through by careful examination of the Websters own words and actions. Where Kendal flatly tells us that Webster never did anything "for the joy of it", painting him as a dour Calvinist, Webster spent money on subscription assemblies so that he may enjoy music and dancing. He loved to sing and even directed church choirs and gave singing lessons.
Kendall tells us that Webster was a harsh and judgemental parent, yet when I read the actual words in letters by Webster and his children, I detect wry teasing humor found in close literate families.
Kendall tells us that Webster becomes reactionary and as evidence tells us that he writes and acts with disdain toward Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. For myself, as a very liberal person student of history, I too would have acted against them both... as these two men represented efforts by Southern slavers to make of the US a mirror of feudal Europe, a land of rich barons living well in their manor houses while their peasants, serfs, slaves toiled in the fields. Both were "democrats" only if we count rich white men. They were clearly White Supremacists. Jefferson, forced himself upon a teenaged girl that he "owned" as a slave. Jackson illegally ordered the entire Cherokee nation on a death march halfway across the continent. Webster, the New England born abolitionist saw through Jefferson and Jackson's false "democracy".
These seeming contradictions are less in Webster than in Kendall's calumnous portrayal.
Yet, another picture comes through by careful examination of the Websters own words and actions. Where Kendal flatly tells us that Webster never did anything "for the joy of it", painting him as a dour Calvinist, Webster spent money on subscription assemblies so that he may enjoy music and dancing. He loved to sing and even directed church choirs and gave singing lessons.
Kendall tells us that Webster was a harsh and judgemental parent, yet when I read the actual words in letters by Webster and his children, I detect wry teasing humor found in close literate families.
Kendall tells us that Webster becomes reactionary and as evidence tells us that he writes and acts with disdain toward Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. For myself, as a very liberal person student of history, I too would have acted against them both... as these two men represented efforts by Southern slavers to make of the US a mirror of feudal Europe, a land of rich barons living well in their manor houses while their peasants, serfs, slaves toiled in the fields. Both were "democrats" only if we count rich white men. They were clearly White Supremacists. Jefferson, forced himself upon a teenaged girl that he "owned" as a slave. Jackson illegally ordered the entire Cherokee nation on a death march halfway across the continent. Webster, the New England born abolitionist saw through Jefferson and Jackson's false "democracy".
These seeming contradictions are less in Webster than in Kendall's calumnous portrayal.
August 11, 2023
Biographer Joshua Kendall's two notable interests are "the psychological turmoil which fueled his literary activity" and "bringing the full-bodied human being to life" (p382-3). Thus there is more speculation about Webster's mental state and health, and more emphasis on his fallibility and foibles, than one might encounter in a more hagiographic biography. It's not a hit piece however, but rather an attempt to correct the hero-worship portrayal.
I appreciate the argument, begun in the title, that Noah Webster be viewed as a founding father, not only or even chiefly for his role in political conversations of the day, such as Federalism and the Constitution's ratification, Shay's Rebellion, etc. but more importantly for his influence on culture through his dictionary and speller. In fact this assertion has me contemplating why do we see founders in political terms chiefly or exclusively, and what other individuals might deserve an argument for consideration as founders? Joshua Kendall persuaded me to consider Webster's place among the ranks of the founders in a way I hadn't done before.
Occasionally, I found the authorial voice jarringly colloquial. Sentences such as "Webster was now convinced that he had the right stuff to rank up there with his icons" (p257) seem strangely street-casual, particularly from an author known for writing about Roget, and who is writing of Webster. Surely the choice was intentional.
A decent picture of Mr. Webster. Very readable; I finished it in several days.
I appreciate the argument, begun in the title, that Noah Webster be viewed as a founding father, not only or even chiefly for his role in political conversations of the day, such as Federalism and the Constitution's ratification, Shay's Rebellion, etc. but more importantly for his influence on culture through his dictionary and speller. In fact this assertion has me contemplating why do we see founders in political terms chiefly or exclusively, and what other individuals might deserve an argument for consideration as founders? Joshua Kendall persuaded me to consider Webster's place among the ranks of the founders in a way I hadn't done before.
Occasionally, I found the authorial voice jarringly colloquial. Sentences such as "Webster was now convinced that he had the right stuff to rank up there with his icons" (p257) seem strangely street-casual, particularly from an author known for writing about Roget, and who is writing of Webster. Surely the choice was intentional.
A decent picture of Mr. Webster. Very readable; I finished it in several days.
October 19, 2020
The book is not nearly as good as the title. Which is a shame, because it is a good book. But how can you live up to a title like that?
First, who doesn't know the name Noah Webster? Gouvenour Morris - he is the Forgotten Founding Father (and my personal favorite) Not Webster. That's just silly.
And beyond his speller and his dictionary, he didn't do much at all as far as the creation of an American culture goes.
He was a weird guy, arrogant, and hard to get along with. Jefferson didn't like him at all. In addition to his lexography he did things like keep counts of all the houses in each town he would pass through.
We share some opinions: hating on Hamilton, Jefferson, and Jackson. He was a driving voice at the Hartford Convention and argues in favour of the North leaving the union with the South.
This is a solid biography of a man who found himself near if not always in the heart of important historical events. He was also a young college student during the Revolutionary War and lived for decades beyond, so he acts as an interesting bridge character between the Revolutionary and Jacksonian periods.
Just don't let the title get your hopes up.
First, who doesn't know the name Noah Webster? Gouvenour Morris - he is the Forgotten Founding Father (and my personal favorite) Not Webster. That's just silly.
And beyond his speller and his dictionary, he didn't do much at all as far as the creation of an American culture goes.
He was a weird guy, arrogant, and hard to get along with. Jefferson didn't like him at all. In addition to his lexography he did things like keep counts of all the houses in each town he would pass through.
We share some opinions: hating on Hamilton, Jefferson, and Jackson. He was a driving voice at the Hartford Convention and argues in favour of the North leaving the union with the South.
This is a solid biography of a man who found himself near if not always in the heart of important historical events. He was also a young college student during the Revolutionary War and lived for decades beyond, so he acts as an interesting bridge character between the Revolutionary and Jacksonian periods.
Just don't let the title get your hopes up.
August 25, 2019
A biographical account of Noah Webster and his eventual completion of the American Dictionary of the English Language.
I was surprised by the number of social connections, some close and others obscure, Webster had. He had the ear of President George Washington. He married Rebecca Greenleaf, whose father, William Greenleaf, the Sheriff of Suffolk County, first read aloud the Declaration of Independence (July 18, 1776, old State House balcony, Boston). Webster's granddaughter (born to his daughter Harriet and Rev William Chauncey Fowler) Emily Fowler was a friend, starting in school, with future poet Emily Dickinson. It goes on and on.
And, of course, there was the dictionary. Finally completed after 26 years and published to solid reviews. But it wasn't easy. It seemed nothing the quirky Noah Webster did was easy.
I was surprised by the number of social connections, some close and others obscure, Webster had. He had the ear of President George Washington. He married Rebecca Greenleaf, whose father, William Greenleaf, the Sheriff of Suffolk County, first read aloud the Declaration of Independence (July 18, 1776, old State House balcony, Boston). Webster's granddaughter (born to his daughter Harriet and Rev William Chauncey Fowler) Emily Fowler was a friend, starting in school, with future poet Emily Dickinson. It goes on and on.
And, of course, there was the dictionary. Finally completed after 26 years and published to solid reviews. But it wasn't easy. It seemed nothing the quirky Noah Webster did was easy.
September 25, 2022
I found this biography to be interesting, though not spell-binding. Having been familiar with Webster’s 1828 dictionary, I enjoyed the historical background that Kendall provides in the biography.
As Kendall states in his afterword, his desire was to give us a picture of the man a task that I think he succeeded accomplishing. Noah Webster, like all humans, was a complex individual with positive and negative qualities.
While the title emphasizes Webster’s contributions as a founding father, I really didn’t see this as a strong element of the biography. In fact, I felt that the “Creation of an American Culture” really wasn’t well developed as a major thematic element of the book.
A fascinating link to the Oxford English Dictionary comes out in the closing chapter of the book, which sparked an interest in reading Simon Winchester’s books about the OED again.
As Kendall states in his afterword, his desire was to give us a picture of the man a task that I think he succeeded accomplishing. Noah Webster, like all humans, was a complex individual with positive and negative qualities.
While the title emphasizes Webster’s contributions as a founding father, I really didn’t see this as a strong element of the biography. In fact, I felt that the “Creation of an American Culture” really wasn’t well developed as a major thematic element of the book.
A fascinating link to the Oxford English Dictionary comes out in the closing chapter of the book, which sparked an interest in reading Simon Winchester’s books about the OED again.
May 21, 2017
This book was a bit of a disappointment. While I am glad I read it and it was filled with interesting information about Webster's life, it missed some critical points explaining why the 1828 is such a treasure.
The 1828 is unique in that it is not a dictionary of common usage. Webster's effort was to elevate the American language based on the usage and meaning in the bible. He was familiar enough with the King James to have made his own revision.
The 1828 is an invaluable resource for students of the King James, The Book of Mormon, students of the Founding Fathers many of whom took classes from Webster, as well as those who study Emily Dickinson and her contemporaries.
more at loveboxes.blogspot
The 1828 is unique in that it is not a dictionary of common usage. Webster's effort was to elevate the American language based on the usage and meaning in the bible. He was familiar enough with the King James to have made his own revision.
The 1828 is an invaluable resource for students of the King James, The Book of Mormon, students of the Founding Fathers many of whom took classes from Webster, as well as those who study Emily Dickinson and her contemporaries.
more at loveboxes.blogspot
May 14, 2019
There was a lot of information in this book that was completely new to me. I didn't realize that a standard speller and dictionary was part of forging a new country. I didn't know that Webster had associated with so many of the early founders. I didn't know that Johnson's dictionary was actually for real--I always thought it was written as something of a farce. I didn't know that the North considered secession during the War of 1812! (Long before South Carolina and Fort Sumter.)
The book seemed a little choppy somehow though. I had trouble keeping track of what year I was reading about. There was also not very much about Webster's family, and even very little about his actual dictionary writing.
The book seemed a little choppy somehow though. I had trouble keeping track of what year I was reading about. There was also not very much about Webster's family, and even very little about his actual dictionary writing.
July 27, 2019
Like many reviews of Noah Webster's early speaking engagements I believe the information presented in this book was interesting, but the way in which it was presented was wanting. I found myself on numerous occasions wondering what I was reading because the subject would change out of nowhere. I think the book would benefit a great deal by adding a few chapters so the reader is not confused by the lack of a clear ending to a thought or subject. Having said that, the story itself is wonderful & I'm glad someone took the time to write it. Oddly enough I had just finished reading "The Professor & the Madman" so I was already in awe of the amount of time & patience it takes to put a dictionary together. It is something I have taken for granted my whole life, but have a new found respect for.
January 9, 2021
Apart from a few episodes, such as Webster's fulminations against "Citizen Genet," his falling out with Hamilton and his role in the Hartford Convention in 1814, this book was not very interesting. This is not to diminish Webster's dogged accomplishment in creating his vastly influential Dictionary. Undoubtedly, Webster was a man of lasting accomplishments in addition to his Dictionary (his "American Spelling Book, "Sketches of American Policy" and the founding of Amherst College), but to name him a "forgotten Founding Father" is a stretch.
August 6, 2022
I wonder if Webster might be autistic.. more to the point I wonder why the author skirted the issue... there certainly was some speculation in the book and this could have been openly speculated..
Clearly, he had problems interacting with people, including his own family.
I am not sure if it was a mediocre book, or the pretense of him being a founding father or that I had expect more...
If the point of the book was to point out Webster'sobssession... there were things, like conversations with his children, that could be left out....
Clearly, he had problems interacting with people, including his own family.
I am not sure if it was a mediocre book, or the pretense of him being a founding father or that I had expect more...
If the point of the book was to point out Webster'sobssession... there were things, like conversations with his children, that could be left out....
April 14, 2023
While the dictionary has been, and continues to be, very influential to American life, as Merriam-Webster's has moved forward and smoothed over many of the original Webster's foibles and prejudices, it makes sense that the actual man has faded from the collective consciousness. The reporting style, which backs up assertions about his character or state of mind at different times of his life with quotations from correspondence and published writings, gives a believable accounting of a complex individual, but it does very little to make him sympathetic or compelling as a person.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews