What do you think?
Rate this book
The Company You Keep
Now a major motion picture directed by Robert Redford and starring Shia LaBeouf, Susan Sarandon, Julie Christie, Terence Howard, Anna Kendrick, Nick Nolte, and Stanley TucciIt is 2006. Seventeen-year-old Isabel Montgomery starts to receive emails from her father, a man who had abandoned her in a hotel room ten years ago when his past finally caught up with him. Why has he contacted her now? Because he needs her help and is finally ready to reveal the truth. Over the course of the next month, further emails arrive telling her more about her family's past. Isabel discovers that her father adopted a false identity in the hope of avoiding murder charges for a robbery gone wrong in 1974. By 1996, with a marriage falling apart around him, he is one last Vietnam-era fugitives still wanted by the law. When he is finally tracked down by a young newspaper reporter in search of a story he must abandon years of safe underground life in an attempt to exonerate himself. Set against the rise and fall of the radical anti-war group the Weather Underground, The Company You Keep is a sweeping American saga about sacrifice, the righteousness of youth, and the tension between political ideals and family loyalties.
415 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 30, 2003
55 people are currently reading
1508 people want to read
About the author
Neil Gordon
49 books19 followersBorn in South Africa in 1958, but his family emigrated to the USA when he was 2 years old.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews
November 4, 2025
CRITIQUE:
Introduction to the Weatherman
This was a timely read for me for two different reasons.
Firstly, Robert Redford (who acted in the filmisation of the novel) died the day after I started reading the novel.
Secondly, at a time when Trump almost daily excoriates the radical left (when he should probably refer to left liberals or social democrats), the novel concerns a number of fictionalised members of the Weather Underground, who had remained fugitives since the killing of a security guard during a bank robbery in 1976.
The title of the novel refers to the characters' route to radicalism via their student friends and colleagues, as well as the way they collectively evaded capture by the FBI and the police.
Collectivity is just as important a part of activism today as it was in the sixties and seventies. You are only as effective as the company you keep.
Neil Gordon defines the goals of the Weather Underground in terms of anti-war, anti-racism and anti-imperialism, which arguably persist as dividing lines between the left and right today.
In fact, he argues that:
While the MAGA GOP claims that it is at war with the radical left, it's surprising that today's radical left hasn't formally declared war on the radical right and adopted the violent tactics of the 1960's and 1970's revolutionary left.
Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn from 1970s radical student group The Weather Underground. (Credit: Greenlit Productions)
Narrative Concerns
The narrative and characters are compelling, but, from a literary point of view, the narrative is communicated in a manner that doesn't do justice to its intrinsic nature and potential.
Each chapter is structured as a six to seven page email (who writes private emails this long?) from one character to the same girl (Izzy, the daughter of two of the principal characters).
Each email tells part of a composite story from the perspective of the sender. However, the emails are not part of a chain of emails between the sender and the recipient.
The emails simply dump the plot (including lengthy and precisely recalled 30 year old dialogue) onto the screen or page, while Izzy never responds, at least until the last email of the novel.
I understand that the fugitives are still on the run when they ostensibly compose their emails, and that confidentiality and secrecy are crucial, when they could be detected by the FBI at any moment.
However, nothing in the e-pistolary format adds any value to the narrative. Instead of taking advantage of the world wide web, the format becomes a one way web.
The novel did inspire me to watch a couple of fascinating documentaries on the Weather Underground though.
SOUNDTRACK:
Introduction to the Weatherman
This was a timely read for me for two different reasons.
Firstly, Robert Redford (who acted in the filmisation of the novel) died the day after I started reading the novel.
Secondly, at a time when Trump almost daily excoriates the radical left (when he should probably refer to left liberals or social democrats), the novel concerns a number of fictionalised members of the Weather Underground, who had remained fugitives since the killing of a security guard during a bank robbery in 1976.
The title of the novel refers to the characters' route to radicalism via their student friends and colleagues, as well as the way they collectively evaded capture by the FBI and the police.
Collectivity is just as important a part of activism today as it was in the sixties and seventies. You are only as effective as the company you keep.
Neil Gordon defines the goals of the Weather Underground in terms of anti-war, anti-racism and anti-imperialism, which arguably persist as dividing lines between the left and right today.
In fact, he argues that:
"Every single day [since the sixties], it's gotten worse. The poor are poorer, the rich are whiter, and the world is a worse place than it's ever been before...
"Imperialism, racism, warmongering. The government's stronger, and the people are weaker, that's the only difference".
While the MAGA GOP claims that it is at war with the radical left, it's surprising that today's radical left hasn't formally declared war on the radical right and adopted the violent tactics of the 1960's and 1970's revolutionary left.
Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn from 1970s radical student group The Weather Underground. (Credit: Greenlit Productions)
Narrative Concerns
The narrative and characters are compelling, but, from a literary point of view, the narrative is communicated in a manner that doesn't do justice to its intrinsic nature and potential.
Each chapter is structured as a six to seven page email (who writes private emails this long?) from one character to the same girl (Izzy, the daughter of two of the principal characters).
Each email tells part of a composite story from the perspective of the sender. However, the emails are not part of a chain of emails between the sender and the recipient.
The emails simply dump the plot (including lengthy and precisely recalled 30 year old dialogue) onto the screen or page, while Izzy never responds, at least until the last email of the novel.
I understand that the fugitives are still on the run when they ostensibly compose their emails, and that confidentiality and secrecy are crucial, when they could be detected by the FBI at any moment.
However, nothing in the e-pistolary format adds any value to the narrative. Instead of taking advantage of the world wide web, the format becomes a one way web.
The novel did inspire me to watch a couple of fascinating documentaries on the Weather Underground though.
SOUNDTRACK:
March 28, 2008
Second read-through. Liked it just as much. Lots of good historical background about Vietnam War and SDS and corrupt national government. Set the scene well to explain motivations of "radical leftist" groups in USA.
Like the message about your actions being result not necessarily of your political or religious viewpoints, but of the people that you live among: the company you keep.
Makes me want to read much more about the 60s & 70s student protests. Reading this now after seeing Taymor's "Across the Universe" added to a greater understanding in my head of life in those days.
Like the message about your actions being result not necessarily of your political or religious viewpoints, but of the people that you live among: the company you keep.
Makes me want to read much more about the 60s & 70s student protests. Reading this now after seeing Taymor's "Across the Universe" added to a greater understanding in my head of life in those days.
August 18, 2007
In fairness, I got about two-thirds of the way through this one and skipped to the end to see how it wound up. For a book that seemed like it should be so narrative-driven, it was written in an awfully turgid style. There were some interesting plot twists at the beginning, and for a while, the hope of more kept me going for a little while, but it seems that a book that's supposed to be sort of a political thriller shouldn't be quite this ponderous to slog through.
December 10, 2012
Dull, dull, dull. Admittedly, I didn't finish this. (also, I'm not pals with or related to the author.) Up through chapter 22, nothing had happened, not one single thing, no plot, no narrative drive, no profound human insights. Nada. When I'd read for the umpteenth time a father nattering on cloyingly about his daughter's sweet little toes and sweet little clothes and sweet little blahblahblah, I threw it across the room with great force. Life is too short to finish badly-written books.
July 20, 2018
mi pare si chiami "sospensione dell'incredulità" quell'atteggiamento mentale per cui il lettore (o lo spettatore di un film), rapito dalla storia, si beve senza fiatare qualsiasi panzana, per quanto inverosimile, purchè non si rompa l'incantesimo della narrazione.
a me, per esempio, funziona benissimo quando riguardo Pretty Woman, ed ogni volta trovo non accettabile, non ragionevole, ma NATURALE, che una prostituta da viali diventi una principessa dopo avere indossato un abito di armani, e che un miliardario con la faccia di Richard Gere se ne innamori perdutamente.
Questo per dire che l'asticella del mio senso dell'assurdo si trova molto in alto.
Ma c'è un problema: cioè che tutto ha un limite, e che, superato il limite, anche il più boccalone dei creduloni si sente offeso, e diventa, per contrappasso, un petulante, puntiglioso, scocciantissimo rompiballe.
Questo libro ha superato il limite.
Ora, se dovessi dire quando, precisamente, lo ha fatto, potrei sbagliarmi.
Così, d'istinto, direi che ci è andato molto vicino quando il padre premuroso prende la figlia di sette anni, se la porta appresso in un giro studiato per depistare l'FBI, poi prende una stanza in albergo a New York, gioca un po' con la bimba, la mette a letto e se ne va, lasciandola lì che dorme, sola, per non ritornare più.
Se partissimo dal presupposto che è uno snaturato, non ci sarebbe niente da ridire. Ma non vi ho ancora detto che le precedenti cento pagine sono state in gran parte dedicate a farci sapere che l'uomo non è un buon padre: è un padre meravigliosissimo, che tutte le volte che parla con sua figlia lo fa con tale delicatezza e tale sensibilità che i presenti non possono che sciogliersi in lacrime di commozione.
Va bè, si dirà. Magari non è uno snaturato ma è un deficiente. Non si è reso conto di fare una cosa folle.
NO!
E' un laureato! Un avvocato! E' supersensibile a tutte le buone cause!
Quindi il lettore ex boccalone, trasformatosi in pedante censore, prosegue scuotendo la testa.
Ne avrà di che.
Nella pagina successiva troverà il protagonista che nel cuore di quella stessa notte torna, dopo una trentina d'anni, nell'ufficio del padre, dove in quel breve lasso di tempo nessuno ha cambiato nulla e la chiave di riserva è lì che lo aspetta, la serratura della cassaforte si apre docilmente, etc., e che cosa ci trova? Trova che il fratello gli ha lasciato una barca di soldi in piccolo taglio, dei documenti falsi pronti all'uso, ed un complicatissimo codice segreto per permettergli di mettersi in contatto con lui (codice che il protagonista decifra in un decimo di secondo).
Che c'è di strano, si dirà. E' suo fratello.
Sì, ma dimenticavo di dirvi che il nostro è LATITANTE da quella trentina d'anni di cui sopra, durante i quali non ha mai - dico mai - avuto un contatto con la famiglia. Il fratello lo ha visto l'ultima volta quando il minore aveva dodici anni. Ciò non ha suscitato nel medesimo non dico un briciolo di rancore, ma nemmeno un'ombra di sana indifferenza per i destini del transfuga: anzi, il più giovane - divinando che un giorno o l'altro il grande ne avrebbe avuto bisogno - si è preoccupato di predisporgli l'occorrente per un'ulteriore fuga. Nel contempo la moglie del minore risponde al numero ricavato dal complicatissimo codice segreto e si mette a disposizione del cognato (che ovviamente non ha mai visto), correndo all'albergo ove si trova la piccola abbandonata e portandola a casa con sé.
Non ci viene detto con quali argomenti lo faccia, dato che la bambina porta il cognome falso del padre - quindi non quello dello zio e della moglie del medesimo - , non conosce la zia e non c'è uno straccio di elemento che giustifichi l'iniziativa. A voler essere pignoli, si chiama rapimento.
Ma sorvoliamo.
Perché, quando verrà il momento, scopriremo che tutti trovano assolutamente sensata l'iniziativa di abbandonare una bambina di sette anni in un albergo senza sapere che cosa ne sarà di lei. E quindi decideranno che chi lo ha fatto intendeva certamente andare a cercare le prove della propria innocenza, in modo da poter poi ottenere l'affidamento della bambina, che invece è inspiegabilmente reclamata dalla madre.
Ora, non occorre scomodare un principe del foro per capire che uno che molla una figlia di sette anni in un albergo, e sparisce sine die, ha tante probabilità di ottenerne l'affidamento quante ne ho io di essere invitata a cena da José Mourinho.
E invece tutti - il molestissimo giornalista, gli ex terroristi, l'agente dell'FBI - invece di pensare che il fuggiasco si sia definitivamente bevuto il cervello, si arrovellano per trovare il senso delle sue ultime mosse, dando per scontato che un senso ci sia.
Questo sarebbe più che sufficiente per superare il mio limite.
Ma era stato polverizzato da tempo.
(p.s.: alla fine, il libro si lascia leggere. Sarebbe anche buono se ci risparmiasse un po' di ripetizioni e la cronaca tutto il bosco minuto per minuto delle ultime pagine)
a me, per esempio, funziona benissimo quando riguardo Pretty Woman, ed ogni volta trovo non accettabile, non ragionevole, ma NATURALE, che una prostituta da viali diventi una principessa dopo avere indossato un abito di armani, e che un miliardario con la faccia di Richard Gere se ne innamori perdutamente.
Questo per dire che l'asticella del mio senso dell'assurdo si trova molto in alto.
Ma c'è un problema: cioè che tutto ha un limite, e che, superato il limite, anche il più boccalone dei creduloni si sente offeso, e diventa, per contrappasso, un petulante, puntiglioso, scocciantissimo rompiballe.
Questo libro ha superato il limite.
Ora, se dovessi dire quando, precisamente, lo ha fatto, potrei sbagliarmi.
Così, d'istinto, direi che ci è andato molto vicino quando il padre premuroso prende la figlia di sette anni, se la porta appresso in un giro studiato per depistare l'FBI, poi prende una stanza in albergo a New York, gioca un po' con la bimba, la mette a letto e se ne va, lasciandola lì che dorme, sola, per non ritornare più.
Se partissimo dal presupposto che è uno snaturato, non ci sarebbe niente da ridire. Ma non vi ho ancora detto che le precedenti cento pagine sono state in gran parte dedicate a farci sapere che l'uomo non è un buon padre: è un padre meravigliosissimo, che tutte le volte che parla con sua figlia lo fa con tale delicatezza e tale sensibilità che i presenti non possono che sciogliersi in lacrime di commozione.
Va bè, si dirà. Magari non è uno snaturato ma è un deficiente. Non si è reso conto di fare una cosa folle.
NO!
E' un laureato! Un avvocato! E' supersensibile a tutte le buone cause!
Quindi il lettore ex boccalone, trasformatosi in pedante censore, prosegue scuotendo la testa.
Ne avrà di che.
Nella pagina successiva troverà il protagonista che nel cuore di quella stessa notte torna, dopo una trentina d'anni, nell'ufficio del padre, dove in quel breve lasso di tempo nessuno ha cambiato nulla e la chiave di riserva è lì che lo aspetta, la serratura della cassaforte si apre docilmente, etc., e che cosa ci trova? Trova che il fratello gli ha lasciato una barca di soldi in piccolo taglio, dei documenti falsi pronti all'uso, ed un complicatissimo codice segreto per permettergli di mettersi in contatto con lui (codice che il protagonista decifra in un decimo di secondo).
Che c'è di strano, si dirà. E' suo fratello.
Sì, ma dimenticavo di dirvi che il nostro è LATITANTE da quella trentina d'anni di cui sopra, durante i quali non ha mai - dico mai - avuto un contatto con la famiglia. Il fratello lo ha visto l'ultima volta quando il minore aveva dodici anni. Ciò non ha suscitato nel medesimo non dico un briciolo di rancore, ma nemmeno un'ombra di sana indifferenza per i destini del transfuga: anzi, il più giovane - divinando che un giorno o l'altro il grande ne avrebbe avuto bisogno - si è preoccupato di predisporgli l'occorrente per un'ulteriore fuga. Nel contempo la moglie del minore risponde al numero ricavato dal complicatissimo codice segreto e si mette a disposizione del cognato (che ovviamente non ha mai visto), correndo all'albergo ove si trova la piccola abbandonata e portandola a casa con sé.
Non ci viene detto con quali argomenti lo faccia, dato che la bambina porta il cognome falso del padre - quindi non quello dello zio e della moglie del medesimo - , non conosce la zia e non c'è uno straccio di elemento che giustifichi l'iniziativa. A voler essere pignoli, si chiama rapimento.
Ma sorvoliamo.
Perché, quando verrà il momento, scopriremo che tutti trovano assolutamente sensata l'iniziativa di abbandonare una bambina di sette anni in un albergo senza sapere che cosa ne sarà di lei. E quindi decideranno che chi lo ha fatto intendeva certamente andare a cercare le prove della propria innocenza, in modo da poter poi ottenere l'affidamento della bambina, che invece è inspiegabilmente reclamata dalla madre.
Ora, non occorre scomodare un principe del foro per capire che uno che molla una figlia di sette anni in un albergo, e sparisce sine die, ha tante probabilità di ottenerne l'affidamento quante ne ho io di essere invitata a cena da José Mourinho.
E invece tutti - il molestissimo giornalista, gli ex terroristi, l'agente dell'FBI - invece di pensare che il fuggiasco si sia definitivamente bevuto il cervello, si arrovellano per trovare il senso delle sue ultime mosse, dando per scontato che un senso ci sia.
Questo sarebbe più che sufficiente per superare il mio limite.
Ma era stato polverizzato da tempo.
(p.s.: alla fine, il libro si lascia leggere. Sarebbe anche buono se ci risparmiasse un po' di ripetizioni e la cronaca tutto il bosco minuto per minuto delle ultime pagine)
December 4, 2015
Yes, I tend to flee from epistolary novels; the format almost always requires the writer to resort to bald artifice in order to tell the damn story. On top of that, few authors manage to create distinct and convincing writing styles for the different characters corresponding. Well, this novel stumbles on all counts, and it's made even worse by the ridiculous e-mail by committee venture, wherein one member picks up where the last one left off, telling the story inch by bloody inch, pussy-footing around any identifiable plot lines while waxing, ranting, and describing in excruciating, unbelievable detail events, feelings, and dialogues that took place up to a quarter century back. Of course, each e-mail is a mini cliffhanger (the whole point of the e-mail chain finally surfaces after a whopping 300+ pages, as if I could care at that point), and every single character writes in exactly the same long-winded, turgid style, as if striving for an MA in Creative Writing, or worse, in an effort to impress the prof on a term paper called Radical American Political Movements of the Sixties and Seventies: A Philosophical and Psychological Approach.
No, I didn't like this silly, contrived novel at all, but I did finish it - turns out I realized after a few e-mails that I had seen the movie version (with R. Redford, who, in spite of his eternal well-coiffed locks still seemed way too dried-up for the role, but that's Hollywood for you) and was curious to compare the two versions. A sad case of dumb and dumber; at least the movie could be done with in a couple of hours with a few yawns, the novel was stretched out to an irritating slog of a read. Verdict: I should have bailed.
No, I didn't like this silly, contrived novel at all, but I did finish it - turns out I realized after a few e-mails that I had seen the movie version (with R. Redford, who, in spite of his eternal well-coiffed locks still seemed way too dried-up for the role, but that's Hollywood for you) and was curious to compare the two versions. A sad case of dumb and dumber; at least the movie could be done with in a couple of hours with a few yawns, the novel was stretched out to an irritating slog of a read. Verdict: I should have bailed.
June 5, 2013
Set against the rise and fall of the Weather Underground, the antiwar group of the Vietnam War era, THE COMPANY YOU KEEP is a sweeping American saga about sacrifice, the ecstatic righteousness of youth, and the tension between political ideals and family loyalties. Here's what's going on...
Jason Sinai...age 46...is having a bad day or two in the early summer of 1996. He likes his life as Jim Grant, a civil rights attorney in Albany, New York. He loves his 7 year old daughter Izzy...and is a caring single parent. Then his life explodes...
His ex-wife sues him for full custody of their daughter...she has dried out after three trips to rehab and is living in London with her father, a millionaire and former U. S. Senator from New York State.
His client, a successful organic veggie grower, is concerned about explaining the organic marijuana growing under the veggies to the FBI...but has a friend who has just surrendered to the FBI to face murder charges for a bank robbery in Ann Arbor in 1974 that resulted in a killing of the guard...
A local investigative reporter named Ben Schulberg has just interviewed him and asks him some very personal questions...but mainly why he isn't representing the friend of his marijuana-growing client. Schulberg, unhappy to have to research "hippie history," is about to break the biggest story of his young career.
The novel is told in a series of 2006 emails to Izzy who now lives in London...mainly from Daddy but also from Schulberg, from a college classmate Mimi Lurie, from a woman who lost a husband in Vietnam and used to babysit Izzy, from a student at Ann Arbor named Rebeccah Osbourne....all related or relevant somehow to the "bad parent" whose past caught up with him one summer day of 1996....those days ten years ago.
Told in three parts, the dividing pages contain lines of lyrics from "Thumbelina," a 1994 song written and sung by Chrissie Hynde that asks a question or two...here's a partial stanza:
Hush little darling
Go to sleep
Look out the window
Count the sheep
That dot the hillsides
And the fields of wheat
Across America
As we cross America
What's important
Here today?
It's a mesmerizing, thought-provoking story...
Postscript: Although Redford and his screenwriter changed some names and ages in the film throwing off the whole timeline...I suggest you see the movie first. The novel does not glorify the notorious Weathermen nor domestic terrorists as the movie does.
Jason Sinai...age 46...is having a bad day or two in the early summer of 1996. He likes his life as Jim Grant, a civil rights attorney in Albany, New York. He loves his 7 year old daughter Izzy...and is a caring single parent. Then his life explodes...
His ex-wife sues him for full custody of their daughter...she has dried out after three trips to rehab and is living in London with her father, a millionaire and former U. S. Senator from New York State.
His client, a successful organic veggie grower, is concerned about explaining the organic marijuana growing under the veggies to the FBI...but has a friend who has just surrendered to the FBI to face murder charges for a bank robbery in Ann Arbor in 1974 that resulted in a killing of the guard...
A local investigative reporter named Ben Schulberg has just interviewed him and asks him some very personal questions...but mainly why he isn't representing the friend of his marijuana-growing client. Schulberg, unhappy to have to research "hippie history," is about to break the biggest story of his young career.
The novel is told in a series of 2006 emails to Izzy who now lives in London...mainly from Daddy but also from Schulberg, from a college classmate Mimi Lurie, from a woman who lost a husband in Vietnam and used to babysit Izzy, from a student at Ann Arbor named Rebeccah Osbourne....all related or relevant somehow to the "bad parent" whose past caught up with him one summer day of 1996....those days ten years ago.
Told in three parts, the dividing pages contain lines of lyrics from "Thumbelina," a 1994 song written and sung by Chrissie Hynde that asks a question or two...here's a partial stanza:
Hush little darling
Go to sleep
Look out the window
Count the sheep
That dot the hillsides
And the fields of wheat
Across America
As we cross America
What's important
Here today?
It's a mesmerizing, thought-provoking story...
Postscript: Although Redford and his screenwriter changed some names and ages in the film throwing off the whole timeline...I suggest you see the movie first. The novel does not glorify the notorious Weathermen nor domestic terrorists as the movie does.
May 1, 2013
In the end, this book is a magnificent read into life in modern America. Fighting wars we don't understand and frustrated with government, we face the same issues today as the nation faced then during Vietnam. It is told in the epistolary model, however, unlike in old days when these types of novels unfolded through a series of letters exchanged between two or more people, this one is told through a series of e-mails from a group called "The Committee". I don't want to ruin anyone's experience, but essentially "the committee" is attempting to persuade a young woman to do something, that of which we're never certain until the very end. Over these e-mails, they tell the story of 1996 by catching the young girl and the reader up on the events in the 1970s that culminated in the actions of 1996 that led to the problems in 2006 faced by the authors. Sounds confusing, but it's not. And at the bottom of the story, everything comes down to one issue - Love. The author concludes that love is more important than everything else in our world, and those who pursue their own happiness as well as those around them and take the chances and risks to achieve that happiness, will be rewarded through good karma, good friendship, and a happy life.
December 11, 2012
Set in the 90s, this dramatic thriller follows civil rights attorney Jim Grant who's in the midst of a custody battle for his seven year old daughter with his recovering drug addict ex-wife. After the arrest of Weather Underground activist fugitive, Sharon Solartz, young, ambitious reporter Ben Schulberg who's assigned to write the story interviews Grant, who refused to represent Solarz after she contacted him. Later, after finding out that Grant left town with his daughter, Isabel, Schulberg soon uncovers that Jim Grant is actually Weather Underground fugitive Jason Sinai. Once he leaves his daughter with his estranged brother in New York City, Grant goes on the run from the FBI across America, encountering old Weather Underground buddies while trying to locate his former girlfriend, another former activist who he claims can clear his name, and hopefully get his daughter back. Meanwhile, as Schulberg continues to investigate Sinai's whereabouts, he interviews the FBI agent who first investigated the crime Sinai went on the run for, and ends up falling for his daughter in the process. He later uncovers a shocking connection between them, and Jason Sinai, which can exonerate him.
June 18, 2017
I read this because I saw eulogies for the author, who has just recently died. It's not the best novel. It's about sixties radicals from the Weather Underground trying to figure out how to emerge from hiding in the 1990s. The plot is kind of a soap opera, with many handsome people who are athletic and have many sexual experiences. I got irritated by how relentlessly brilliant and good looking and well-connected everyone was. Also, their politics weren't articulated in any particularly compelling way. Was I supposed to believe that these folks had risked their lives and robbed a bank for politics, when they could hardly explain anything they thought? Yet the author interviewed all the surviving Weathermen and read a pretty respectable list of books about the movement. Maybe it would have been easier to do this without the obligation to write a compelling plot connecting all the threads?
February 15, 2014
The Company You Keep (2012), directed by Robert Redford, with
Robert Redford ... Jim Grant / Nick Sloan
Shia LaBeouf ... Ben Shepard
Julie Christie ... Mimi Lurie
Susan Sarandon ... Sharon Solarz
Nick Nolte ... Donal Fitzgerald
Chris Cooper ... Daniel Sloan
Terrence Howard ... FBI Agent Cornelius
Stanley Tucci ... Ray Fuller
Richard Jenkins ... Jed Lewis
Anna Kendrick ... Diana
Brendan Gleeson ... Henry Osborne
Brit Marling ... Rebecca Osborne
Sam Elliott ... Mac McLeod
Robert Redford ... Jim Grant / Nick Sloan
Shia LaBeouf ... Ben Shepard
Julie Christie ... Mimi Lurie
Susan Sarandon ... Sharon Solarz
Nick Nolte ... Donal Fitzgerald
Chris Cooper ... Daniel Sloan
Terrence Howard ... FBI Agent Cornelius
Stanley Tucci ... Ray Fuller
Richard Jenkins ... Jed Lewis
Anna Kendrick ... Diana
Brendan Gleeson ... Henry Osborne
Brit Marling ... Rebecca Osborne
Sam Elliott ... Mac McLeod
July 15, 2013
Competent but not spectacular epistolary novel that uses the backdrop of the Weather Underground as a frame for mystery and examination of the motives of revolutionaries. Despite the research that went into the effort, it comes off superficially in its presentation of the time and motivations. New insights into the era are absent and characterizations of the individuals lack distinction but all this seems consistent with a page-turner effort.
October 14, 2014
I'm not a fan of the "email by committee" format. I think it would have been simpler as either a straightforward telling of the story, or as one long letter from her father.
While I liked the main mystery - Jason going on the run from the police, and why does he need to see Mimi so badly? - everything else just dragged. If Gordon streamlined the story (again, probably by just having Jason tell it), then I think I would have enjoyed it more, rather than just finishing it to finish it.
While I liked the main mystery - Jason going on the run from the police, and why does he need to see Mimi so badly? - everything else just dragged. If Gordon streamlined the story (again, probably by just having Jason tell it), then I think I would have enjoyed it more, rather than just finishing it to finish it.
March 25, 2025
DNF. About hippy radical Vietnam war protesters who evolved into bank robbers and killed the security guard. They went on the run, split up adopted new names/identities and went about living their lives for the next 20 years. The story is pulled together by a newspaper reporter. Now here's where you loose me by telling basically the same story by 8 different people over and over again. I skipped to the epilogue to find the end and discover where these folks are today. Although they lived in the community they were locked into their own prison from the past. Most turned themselves in.
March 24, 2015
Recently a friend of mine gifted me with a copy of The Company You Keep. As someone who went to college during the late sixties, early seventies, the historical background (SDS/Weather Underground) intrigued me. I remember many of the names quoted: Diane Oughton, Kathleen Soliath, Susan Sterns, I even remember having conversations with Silas Trim Bissell at the UW hub. So I was eager to read it. And indeed I did plow through the first hundred pages. Oddly when James Hall, the upstate NY attorney, is on the run, AND we figure out that he is Jason Sinai, a Weather Underground fugitive, the story starts bogging down. For a political thriller, I would have expected more suspense and paranoia.
Gordon told the story through multiple emails to the main character's daughter. This was engaging at first, but about half-way through I got tired of it. Plus I couldn't get over how each of the correspondents was equally adept at descriptive prose. Furthermore, I wondered how interested the daughter would have been in some of the more intimate details. It's evident that Gordon can write very well. I think he should have dispensed with the email format.
If the entire book had been written as well as the last sixty pages, I would have rated it five stars. On the other hand, three stars is way more than the movie would probably rate.
Gordon told the story through multiple emails to the main character's daughter. This was engaging at first, but about half-way through I got tired of it. Plus I couldn't get over how each of the correspondents was equally adept at descriptive prose. Furthermore, I wondered how interested the daughter would have been in some of the more intimate details. It's evident that Gordon can write very well. I think he should have dispensed with the email format.
If the entire book had been written as well as the last sixty pages, I would have rated it five stars. On the other hand, three stars is way more than the movie would probably rate.
July 17, 2012
Two story devices work well in this that often fail: multiple narrators and modified epistolary novel format; the narrative is built by a very long email chain (in detail that could not possible exist in that format, but it’s so engagingly written that you can suspend your disbelief).
It’s a message to the millennial generation and a reminder to all of American 20th century social and political history; It also wants to echo current events. It’s a mystery, love stories, and both a novel of ideas and of individuals and a nation coming of age. It begins very left leaning but becomes more balanced. Mostly it’s about how we construct history, both personal and political. Failed idealism drives the story, but light and hope are never totally absent figuratively or literally.
Although the third quarter of the book becomes a bit wordy and repetitive (we get it by then!), it still seems to me the one of the most satisfying novels I've read in quite a while. I hope that Redford accomplishes with this material in the upcoming film version what he almost accomplished with Lions for Lambs. The personal is political, and vice versa.
It’s a message to the millennial generation and a reminder to all of American 20th century social and political history; It also wants to echo current events. It’s a mystery, love stories, and both a novel of ideas and of individuals and a nation coming of age. It begins very left leaning but becomes more balanced. Mostly it’s about how we construct history, both personal and political. Failed idealism drives the story, but light and hope are never totally absent figuratively or literally.
Although the third quarter of the book becomes a bit wordy and repetitive (we get it by then!), it still seems to me the one of the most satisfying novels I've read in quite a while. I hope that Redford accomplishes with this material in the upcoming film version what he almost accomplished with Lions for Lambs. The personal is political, and vice versa.
January 6, 2015
I'm not a fan of books about politics. Or at least,I wasn't one. After reading this novel there's a big chance i'll keep reading more and more about the subject.
The story is set around Jim Grant,a seemingly ordinary lawyer with an ordinary life. A caring father,a good professional. But e-mail after e-mail we see his life changing and how much the fight for liberty can cost.
The story is all written in e-mails,which i thought was a really innovating and interesting form. Also points to Neil Gordon of characterization,even if the e-mails didn't have names i'd have known which character was speaking.
The reason i didn't give this book 5 stars is because the e-mails seems a bit unrealistic. I mean,the history happened 10 years from the time they were sending Isabel the e-mails,how could all the characters (except Jed,but he was drunk) remember all the details so well?
Also the ending could have been longer. I have many questions about it,and I am still attached to the characters. Like i said,top notch characterization.
That said,this book is fantastic and totally deserving of the 4 stars i gave it.
The story is set around Jim Grant,a seemingly ordinary lawyer with an ordinary life. A caring father,a good professional. But e-mail after e-mail we see his life changing and how much the fight for liberty can cost.
The story is all written in e-mails,which i thought was a really innovating and interesting form. Also points to Neil Gordon of characterization,even if the e-mails didn't have names i'd have known which character was speaking.
The reason i didn't give this book 5 stars is because the e-mails seems a bit unrealistic. I mean,the history happened 10 years from the time they were sending Isabel the e-mails,how could all the characters (except Jed,but he was drunk) remember all the details so well?
Also the ending could have been longer. I have many questions about it,and I am still attached to the characters. Like i said,top notch characterization.
That said,this book is fantastic and totally deserving of the 4 stars i gave it.
May 5, 2013
Was hoping it would be better than it was for me. I think the movie in this case may be better even though I'm sure it will make changes. The book could have done with some editing. I've seen reviews that say it is a well written book; it is in that he knows how to give overlong commentaries with lots and lots of words-he them very well but there are too many. It made the book longer than it needed to be for the story it was trying to tell. It would have been a very interesting story if he could have just written it a bit more sparingly. Lots of info on the Weatherman with actual names used and actual events but I could not remember enough to be able to separate fact from fiction and I always hate that.
June 26, 2013
I picked this up because I had originally wanted to see the movie, and didn't realize it had been a book first. I was intrigued by the format - the entire book is told in emails, so you hear the story laid out by different people and their viewpoints. Although it starts out captivating, the book ends up becoming sort of long and drawn out, and I found myself just wanting it to get to the point. When the "big reveal" happens, its a little bit of a let down. It feels like so much of this book is more about the view points of the characters and less about what is actually happening, even though you are supposed to feel some sort of suspense. The end isn't even "the end" - the prologue does the wrapping up, and it is done very quickly and with very little personality.
August 7, 2013
I loved it and want to see the movie. A complex narrative told though multiple voices in an email format. It's a Vietnam, sixties protest story which got confusing if I didn't chart out the characters who had multiple names as many were Weatherground fugitives. Sadly parallels so much of what's still happening though.
January 24, 2015
I really enjoyed this book. Thanks, Cynthia. A detailed telling of the story of Weathermen from the early 70's. Great character development, wonderful twists of plot. Engrossing.
May 11, 2020
Damn. Wrote a review and it didn't get saved or published. Read somewhere that it should be called The Choices You Make. I lived thru those times. I wasn't as brave or courageous or smart as the people in this novel but I was demonstrating, protesting the war in Vietnam, marching in the streets of Albany, took the train to Washington DC for that huge demonstration, wrote letters to the editor, and so forth.
I liked how this novel intertwined the fictional with the real people like Bill Ayers, Diana Oughton, Bernardine Dohrn. Liked the mentioning of the Port Huron Statement, SDS, and wish they would have included more of that, Tom Hayden. I started this book on March 6 and then the Covid-19 pandemic hit shortly thereafter but I had also managed to borrow the movie from the library which I watched when I put the book down. Robert Redford as Jim Grant? I don't think so. Not in my mind. Just an average movie. The book is better. Almost always that's true.
Then I finished up by listening to the last third of the book as an audiobook. Really liked that. Different cast members playing Jason, Mimi, Rebeccah, and Ben. Isabel. Brought me back to those times. My values were forged during the Vietnam War. Haven't really changed since. I was horrified by that war, the bombing of the North, 7M tons of bombs, napalm, Dow Chemical, the draft, hell no I won't go, "Lyndon Johnson told the nation, have no fear of escalation, I am trying everyone to please; though this isn't really war, we're sending 50,000 more, to help save Vietnam from Vietnamese!" Tom Paxton song.
I liked how this novel intertwined the fictional with the real people like Bill Ayers, Diana Oughton, Bernardine Dohrn. Liked the mentioning of the Port Huron Statement, SDS, and wish they would have included more of that, Tom Hayden. I started this book on March 6 and then the Covid-19 pandemic hit shortly thereafter but I had also managed to borrow the movie from the library which I watched when I put the book down. Robert Redford as Jim Grant? I don't think so. Not in my mind. Just an average movie. The book is better. Almost always that's true.
Then I finished up by listening to the last third of the book as an audiobook. Really liked that. Different cast members playing Jason, Mimi, Rebeccah, and Ben. Isabel. Brought me back to those times. My values were forged during the Vietnam War. Haven't really changed since. I was horrified by that war, the bombing of the North, 7M tons of bombs, napalm, Dow Chemical, the draft, hell no I won't go, "Lyndon Johnson told the nation, have no fear of escalation, I am trying everyone to please; though this isn't really war, we're sending 50,000 more, to help save Vietnam from Vietnamese!" Tom Paxton song.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 14, 2023
I was a little ambivalent about this book for several reasons as it had its good parts and bad parts. The good part is that it tells a little about the “counterculture” in the United States in the late 60’s and early 70’s, as well as its role in the antiwar movement during Vietnam, and since this history is either forgotten or overlooked when teaching history today, it’s a good introduction for those interested in the thinking of the figures involved. However, since it was written with the help of many of the figures involved, through interviews with and books by them, it also comes off as a sort of self-justification and apology for what happened. All of this is told through fictitious members of the Weather Underground who are fugitives from justice due to a botched bank robbery in which a security guard was killed. This is based loosely on another incident, a Brinks robbery in which two security guards were killed. (Two of the participants were paroled only a couple of years ago.) Their point here, made through the author, is that with the term “domestic terrorism” thrown around so loosely today, they only targeted buildings and not people. Hmmm, the famous explosion the book mentions where three members blew themselves up in a Manhattan townhouse is smoothly glossed over as the bomb they were preparing was for an officers’ dance in Fort Dix, New Jersey, so while none of their bombs killed anyone, it was more for ineptitude than lack of intention. However, this wasn’t the only case of playing fast and loose with history so the book began to annoy me for its lack of attention to historical detail.
Jason Sinai, the principal character, tells of his father taking him to a demonstration in Washington DC in 1960 and how he saw the Verrazano Bridge from the car window – except the bridge only began construction in 1959 and wasn’t opened until 1964. Later one of his fellow Weathermen, Mimi, puts it at 1962 but still too early. Later, there’s a political discussion in 1996 where one of the parties says that the next election would be between Gore and W; nice try but Clinton was running for re-election that summer and I don’t think Bush vs Gore was in anyone’s playbook yet. However, his companion is equally clairvoyant and complains about the guy in the White House having sexual relations with his young aide; however, the Lewinsky story hadn’t broken yet and although I doubt that anyone would have been surprised, it wasn’t in the news. These may be minor quibbles but it shows a lack of attention.
The book also has a personal angle in that Jason Sinai’s trying to maintain custody of his daughter, whose mother is negligent and a longtime drug addict as well as a distinguished ex-senator’s daughter, but his cover is about to be blown by a reporter; this is the personal angle woven into the story of an ex-terrorist and how he escapes police. There is a big twist at the end but I guessed it a little more than halfway through the book – the hints were none too subtle – so it was just a question of waiting for the other shoe to drop and seeing how Mimi figured into his plan.
It’s not a bad book but the author was not at the level of other novelists who rehashed the history of the movement. Susan Choi’s “American Woman” did a fairly good job of Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army and James Ellroy’s “American Tabloid” (part of a trilogy) does an unbelievable job with the run-up to the assassination of JFK, guaranteed to satisfy historians and conspiracy theorists alike. This book was just ok as a slice of history for those who don’t know much about it.
Jason Sinai, the principal character, tells of his father taking him to a demonstration in Washington DC in 1960 and how he saw the Verrazano Bridge from the car window – except the bridge only began construction in 1959 and wasn’t opened until 1964. Later one of his fellow Weathermen, Mimi, puts it at 1962 but still too early. Later, there’s a political discussion in 1996 where one of the parties says that the next election would be between Gore and W; nice try but Clinton was running for re-election that summer and I don’t think Bush vs Gore was in anyone’s playbook yet. However, his companion is equally clairvoyant and complains about the guy in the White House having sexual relations with his young aide; however, the Lewinsky story hadn’t broken yet and although I doubt that anyone would have been surprised, it wasn’t in the news. These may be minor quibbles but it shows a lack of attention.
The book also has a personal angle in that Jason Sinai’s trying to maintain custody of his daughter, whose mother is negligent and a longtime drug addict as well as a distinguished ex-senator’s daughter, but his cover is about to be blown by a reporter; this is the personal angle woven into the story of an ex-terrorist and how he escapes police. There is a big twist at the end but I guessed it a little more than halfway through the book – the hints were none too subtle – so it was just a question of waiting for the other shoe to drop and seeing how Mimi figured into his plan.
It’s not a bad book but the author was not at the level of other novelists who rehashed the history of the movement. Susan Choi’s “American Woman” did a fairly good job of Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army and James Ellroy’s “American Tabloid” (part of a trilogy) does an unbelievable job with the run-up to the assassination of JFK, guaranteed to satisfy historians and conspiracy theorists alike. This book was just ok as a slice of history for those who don’t know much about it.
February 11, 2026
I remember seeing the movie and I loved. After a 100 years or so I managed to get the book. Unfortunately it was a bit of a disappointment. There are sooooo many people; 2/3 through I lost track and just plowed through to get to the climax of the story: will Jim and Mimi get caught? Yes, eventually and in the last 3-4 pages we get to know what happened to them. They were caught, sat in jail for a short time and were then let out. Huh. Okay.
What I did like tho was the plot: the 1960's in America, the Weathermen/ Weather underground, the different lives they lead and finally the chase. Also, most of the story is through emails sent to Jim's daughter Isabel. However, there were a few times where I didn't know who was the narrator or what year it was. 1996 and 2006 run parallel in this book.
What I did like tho was the plot: the 1960's in America, the Weathermen/ Weather underground, the different lives they lead and finally the chase. Also, most of the story is through emails sent to Jim's daughter Isabel. However, there were a few times where I didn't know who was the narrator or what year it was. 1996 and 2006 run parallel in this book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 16, 2021
There are some stories that the title is just perfect for the story. " The Company You Keep" which is a line said by one of the characters is a story set in two times the 1970's and 1996. It was interesting to read having lived through these times of unrest about the Vietnam War and frustrated with the government and 2021 soon after the siege at the Capitol. One character describes that how you feel about an issue is often 'the company you keep'. The story is told through emails sent to a daughter to request her help.
July 13, 2018
I found this incredibly hard to get into.
The premise: letters written to a young woman about events in the past, sounded very intriguing. Especially because the time period in question was 1960s and 70s.
However, the emails are emotional and the characters difficult to identify with and left me saying "who cares" with more and more frequency.
The premise: letters written to a young woman about events in the past, sounded very intriguing. Especially because the time period in question was 1960s and 70s.
However, the emails are emotional and the characters difficult to identify with and left me saying "who cares" with more and more frequency.
September 30, 2025
I had seen the movie and was confused by it, so thought if I read the book, I would understand better. This book is confusing also, I think because of the format in which it is written. I could actually hear Robert Redford narrating, as he does in the movie. It does tell of, thought out everything, the love the father has for his daughter/daughters and wants to protect them from his past.
August 15, 2017
Set against the rise and fall of the Weather Underground, the antiwar group of the Vietnam War era, THE COMPANY YOU KEEP is a sweeping American saga about sacrifice, the ecstatic righteousness of youth, and the tension between political ideals and family loyalties. Great read!
November 12, 2018
Gordon's story of revolution, politics, history, love and war is richly told, if a bit too wordy at times. If you're a child of the 60's and came of age during the Vietnam war I believe you would appreciate this novel. Historical fiction that rang true for me in many passages.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews