Argues that Franklin's kite experiment never took place and that it was a scientific hoax that grew to legendary proportions and may have affected the outcome of the American Revolution.
The author seems inclined to freely criticize , not just Franklin, but others who appear here and there in the narrative. He “picks on” John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Buffon, among others and presents Joseph Priestley as if he were a complete nincompoop …. he wasn’t. Anyway, while the central theory of the book may have been a bit light, Franklin’s kite experiment was a hoax and may have led to the U. s. Becoming a nation, the story is told well enough to hold interest and is entertaining
Not as satisfying as I wanted it to be, honestly. Interesting to realize that Franklin almost certainly did not do the kite thing, and of course the wacky parlor-game atmosphere of early electrical science is always fun to read about. I think I actually wanted more details about Franklin's other hoaxes, for one thing.
Also, Priestly comes off very badly in this book, which is a strange contrast to the Steven Johnson book I read last summer. In that, he seemed flawed but interesting, whereas Tucker is brutal about both his looks and his personality: basically, a sycophantic weirdo.
It's one of those books that contrasts with other books I've read in a way that makes me wonder about the biases of all the authors. History can be interesting that way.
Enjoyable monograph concerning Ben Franklin's rise to scientific fame based on his experiments with electricity, and his use of the famous, and probably apochryphal "kite legend," to tweak the stuffed-shirts at the London-based Royal Society and to cajole them into giving this unwashed colonial credit for his actual discoveries.
Waste of time. I spotted it on the library shelf and thought it looked interesting. What a disappointment. If you want to read about the history of electricity experiments, there are better books out there. If you want to read about Benjamin Franklin, there are better books out there. If an author or publisher is going to write on the book jacket that they've proven a respected scientist is a fraud, they'd better actually prove it- not bury in a endnote that they haven't actually proven anything and that assumptions they present may not be valid. It would also be beneficial to not resort to ad hominem. 'Trotting about Philadelphia with his bastard son at his heels'? Really, was that necessary?
Meh. A mildly interesting look into Benjamin Franklin's forays into electrical experimentation. Fairly well researched, but filled with lots of conjecture.