I really wanted to like this book. And I can't decide if its the writing, or the subject.
Vannevar Bush (rhymes with beaver) ( yeah I know) was the civilian in charge of the Office of Scientific Research and Development during WWII. He oversaw the Manhattan Project, antisubmarine warfare, the proximity fuse, and other such technological activities that ultimatly won the war. A confidante of Oppenheimer, of Forrrestal, of Roosevelt, he was responsible for the civilian application of the enormous funds on the civilian side of WWII. Yet he clung to an image of a fiscally conservative Yankee, claiming to just run a farm- yet never shying away from the spotlight. A graduate of MIT and Tufts, he was trying to position himself as a vanguard for the masses.
Yet this book ( again, not sure if it was due to Bush's view of his legacy and notes or the book itself) was painful at times to read. Characters got introduced multiple times. Occasionally as a villain and occasionally as an aside. Chapters either covered 20 years or 2 months. They overlapped with little consistent rhyme or reason except for chronology. His early life is covered in about three to four chapters, his life post 1955 is covered in a chapter but the focus is World War II, 5 years covered in 8 chapters. And Bush comes across as a word unprintable in family reviews.
His philosphy is hazy and indistinct. He champions the everyman and shuns corporations and waste.... yet runs a corporation(s) and directs federal money to his old alma matter. The everyman must triumph against the state but the state provides. Atomic bombs are just another weapon in the arsenal but better we have it than the other. He shuns writing his memiors and leaves it to others but hates on them for misrepresenting himself.
What I knew him for, the National Science Foundation, he actively disavowed it.
The sense of Vannevar Bush the man is non existent. He married and... his wife supported him. There is probably 5 pages, in total, about his wife and that's spread out. No fleshing out, no discussion of his private life just HE POSSIBLY INVENTED COMPUTERS AND SAVED US IN WWII. No explanation of his character and philosophy beyond some weak and tepid vindications of the factors of the time.
This book also veers into sociology, biology, corporate structure, operations research, management, WWII, the Manhattan Project, computers, etc. And it does none of them well. Read as a leadership book it's less than stellar and less than educating.
I wanted to like this but I really didn't. It was comprehensive, and thorough, and deep. The subject material just didn't do himself any favors.