What do you think?
Rate this book
Scandalmonger
The bestselling historical novel that exposes the less than honorable side of our Founding Fathers by the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist.
In this gripping and timely work, William Safire unveils the story behind the nation's first great political scandals. James Thomson Callender, the "scandalmonger" of the title, is an ambitious gossip-peddling editor secretly hired by Thomas Jefferson as a political weapon. After carefully damaging Alexander Hamilton's reputation, thereby paving the way for Jefferson's success, Callender is shunned by the very politicians on whose behalf he was jailed for sedition. Broke and betrayed, Callender seeks revenge by exposing an illicit affair between Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemmings, an accusation that ultimately cost Callender his career and would not be authenticated for two centuries.
By using actual letters, records, and notes to re-create dialogue and events, Scandalmonger embodies historical fiction at its best, politics at its most intriguing, and our Founding Fathers at their most notorious. For those who think that Washington sex scandals and lurid journalism are recent developments, this novel will be a revelation, for Safire shows how media intrusiveness into private lives-and politicians' cool manipulation of the press-are practices as old as the Constitution.
In this gripping and timely work, William Safire unveils the story behind the nation's first great political scandals. James Thomson Callender, the "scandalmonger" of the title, is an ambitious gossip-peddling editor secretly hired by Thomas Jefferson as a political weapon. After carefully damaging Alexander Hamilton's reputation, thereby paving the way for Jefferson's success, Callender is shunned by the very politicians on whose behalf he was jailed for sedition. Broke and betrayed, Callender seeks revenge by exposing an illicit affair between Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemmings, an accusation that ultimately cost Callender his career and would not be authenticated for two centuries.
By using actual letters, records, and notes to re-create dialogue and events, Scandalmonger embodies historical fiction at its best, politics at its most intriguing, and our Founding Fathers at their most notorious. For those who think that Washington sex scandals and lurid journalism are recent developments, this novel will be a revelation, for Safire shows how media intrusiveness into private lives-and politicians' cool manipulation of the press-are practices as old as the Constitution.
496 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
34 people are currently reading
626 people want to read
About the author
William Safire
99 books55 followersWilliam Lewis Safire was an American author, columnist, journalist and presidential speechwriter.
He was perhaps best known as a long-time syndicated political columnist for the New York Times and a regular contributor to "On Language" in the New York Times Magazine, a column on popular etymology, new or unusual usages, and other language-related topics.
He was perhaps best known as a long-time syndicated political columnist for the New York Times and a regular contributor to "On Language" in the New York Times Magazine, a column on popular etymology, new or unusual usages, and other language-related topics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
January 15, 2017
There is potential in this story, a novel that focuses on the individuals involved in the pamphlet wars of early American politics. The founders provided plenty of material for the scurrilous pens of people like James Thomson Callender and William "Peter Porcupine" Cobbett. They were venomous about both the political and the personal. Callender outed Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds and attacked Washington and Adams, at times with the secret financial backing of Jefferson. Later, however, he vengefully turned on his former patron, revealing Jefferson's attempt to seduce a friend's wife and his relationship with Sally Hemings. Libel and sedition actions were prosecuted against writers and politicians on both sides, sometimes resulting in jail sentences. The law and the meaning of freedom of the press were far from settled, making this a tumultuous time in the history of journalism.
There is a lot of historical material to work with, but unfortunately Safire can't seem to shake a pedantic need to lecture the reader and even the characters. They seem slightly more realistic when using passages quoted from actual letters, but it takes more than using the text from letters and presenting it as dialogue to turn history into historical fiction. Safire's habit of awkwardly defining words for the reader, in case we need help, doesn't do much for believability either.
This book also has one of the worst cases of As You Know Bob-ism that I have ever seen. Alexander Hamilton, one of the most noted attorneys of the day, is apparently a little rusty on the common law for libel. Luckily, the lawyer working with him on the famous People v. Croswell libel trial is around to let him know that "Blackstone defines libel as 'any scandalous publication that tends to breach the peace.'"
Characters even as-you-know-bob themselves. On the way to an illicit and adulterous meeting with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton put some money in his pocket and "envisioned the day when banknotes would be issued throughout the nation by the United States Bank, backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government, and not issued pell-mell by local banks that were all too often on the brink of insolvency." Hamilton's partner in the libel trial later gives himself a clairvoyant lecture, reflecting that if they don't win the case, "perhaps Hamilton's argument would be taken up by the State legislature and the law would be changed."
With all of this punctiliousness, there is a strange imprecision on other topics. The number of states is misstated more than once. The character Samuel Chase, in discussing the sedition law, mentions the Virginia resolution, saying it "was rejected by all the other thirteen states, excepting Kentucky." I'm not sure if he means there are thirteen total states or fourteen, but Kentucky was the fifteenth state. In any case, by the time the sedition act was passed in 1798 there were sixteen.
In discussing the election of 1800, a significant event both historically and in the novel, the number of states is also muddled. That election resulted in an electoral tie between Jefferson and Burr, so the House of Representatives had to vote by state to determine the President. Safire writes, "Each of the thirteen States had one vote, with nine required to elect. Gallatin knew he had only eight States lined up for Jefferson...the process was frozen at eight States for Jefferson, six for Burr." So were there thirteen states? Fourteen? Nope, still sixteen.
I did appreciate some of what Safire calls the "Underbook." This is essentially an extended "Notes" section with more background on some of the history. For the most part, it's basically like most note sections, although it is admittedly unusual in fiction. The section on the Reynolds scandal contains material that I haven't seen referenced elsewhere. In particular, the discussion of Julian Boyd's (somewhat off-the-wall) theory that Hamilton forged Maria's letters and the reference to Grotjan's memoir that mentions Maria Reynolds' later life led me to some other interesting reading.
Overall it would have been a much better novel if some of the more pedantic historical statements had been taken out of the characters' mouths and heads and put in the notes. Fiction is better when it's given a little room to breathe and the reader is trusted to figure it out.
There is a lot of historical material to work with, but unfortunately Safire can't seem to shake a pedantic need to lecture the reader and even the characters. They seem slightly more realistic when using passages quoted from actual letters, but it takes more than using the text from letters and presenting it as dialogue to turn history into historical fiction. Safire's habit of awkwardly defining words for the reader, in case we need help, doesn't do much for believability either.
This book also has one of the worst cases of As You Know Bob-ism that I have ever seen. Alexander Hamilton, one of the most noted attorneys of the day, is apparently a little rusty on the common law for libel. Luckily, the lawyer working with him on the famous People v. Croswell libel trial is around to let him know that "Blackstone defines libel as 'any scandalous publication that tends to breach the peace.'"
Characters even as-you-know-bob themselves. On the way to an illicit and adulterous meeting with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton put some money in his pocket and "envisioned the day when banknotes would be issued throughout the nation by the United States Bank, backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government, and not issued pell-mell by local banks that were all too often on the brink of insolvency." Hamilton's partner in the libel trial later gives himself a clairvoyant lecture, reflecting that if they don't win the case, "perhaps Hamilton's argument would be taken up by the State legislature and the law would be changed."
With all of this punctiliousness, there is a strange imprecision on other topics. The number of states is misstated more than once. The character Samuel Chase, in discussing the sedition law, mentions the Virginia resolution, saying it "was rejected by all the other thirteen states, excepting Kentucky." I'm not sure if he means there are thirteen total states or fourteen, but Kentucky was the fifteenth state. In any case, by the time the sedition act was passed in 1798 there were sixteen.
In discussing the election of 1800, a significant event both historically and in the novel, the number of states is also muddled. That election resulted in an electoral tie between Jefferson and Burr, so the House of Representatives had to vote by state to determine the President. Safire writes, "Each of the thirteen States had one vote, with nine required to elect. Gallatin knew he had only eight States lined up for Jefferson...the process was frozen at eight States for Jefferson, six for Burr." So were there thirteen states? Fourteen? Nope, still sixteen.
I did appreciate some of what Safire calls the "Underbook." This is essentially an extended "Notes" section with more background on some of the history. For the most part, it's basically like most note sections, although it is admittedly unusual in fiction. The section on the Reynolds scandal contains material that I haven't seen referenced elsewhere. In particular, the discussion of Julian Boyd's (somewhat off-the-wall) theory that Hamilton forged Maria's letters and the reference to Grotjan's memoir that mentions Maria Reynolds' later life led me to some other interesting reading.
Overall it would have been a much better novel if some of the more pedantic historical statements had been taken out of the characters' mouths and heads and put in the notes. Fiction is better when it's given a little room to breathe and the reader is trusted to figure it out.
August 12, 2025
I was compelled to (momentarily) abandon Foote’s leviathan of a Civil War tome in favor of a historical period piece with actual intrigue and a pulse; alas, I found myself really struggling to stay engaged with this one. I can’t tell if it was the writing style, the personal distractions and changes in my life, or if I’m just simply in a reading slump, as the subject itself interested me... but interested I was not.
Anyhow, Scandalmonger is a historical fiction set in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the book explores political conspiracy and press manipulation of early American politics, centering on James Thomson Callender, once a respected pamphleteer and political commentator, he quickly becomes a controversial figure in the American press. Through his writing, he exposes scandals that rock the highest levels of the U.S. government involving prominent figures such as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Aaron Burr.
Safire, moonlighting from his former gig as a presidential speechwriter and professional opinion-haver, marshals an impressive arsenal of historical facts, combining meticulous historical research with vivid storytelling to depict the rise of political journalism, the noble mess that is freedom of the press, and the petty vendettas that helped shape the republic we know and occasionally tolerate today.
Safire’s writing style is a unique blend of historical accuracy, intellectual depth, and dramatic storytelling. The novel combines fact and fiction, with dramatized scenes grounded in real events and supported by extensive notes. Lending the book both scholarly weight and narrative intrigue.
One minor cavil, I found, lies in the novel’s dialogue; though undeniably erudite and rich with intellectual texture, it often bears a stiffness that distances rather than draws in; I found my mind wandering entirely too often. The language, though eloquent, forsakes the cadence of lived speech, sacrificing immediacy for a mannered stylization that I felt was estranged to the more fluid, organic exchanges typical of accessible historical fiction.
And although the book wasn’t lengthy, it unfolded with a kind of wearying persistence. There were stretches in which I feared I might not be able to endure. And yet, scattered throughout its pages were moments of unexpected clarity; sentences so finely wrought, so intimately true, that they pierced the monotony. In those rare instances, the burden of the journey felt, if not justified, then at least meaningfully interrupted.
These two quotes in particular really resonated with me in regards to the deep skepticism I feel towards unchecked power and a call for humility and balance in leadership. The higher one rises, the more perilous the distance between who one was and who one must now pretend to be; for power does not simply corrupt, but also estranges a man from the conditions of his own humility. To strike fear and feel none is to enter the realm of tyranny. However, to govern while also carrying the weight of dread, that is the uneasy contract of power lived with conscience.
Loyalty, also, is rarely reciprocal in the corridors of power; it is bartered, broken, and ultimately discarded when no longer useful. This breach echoes across time to our present moment, where public confidence in institutions and leaders is increasingly fragile, eroded by partisanship and the detritus of promises made but not kept.
With all that being said, at its core, Scandalmonger is an examination of the enduring potency of scandal as a political instrument. With surgical precision, Safire dissects the machinery through which private failings are transfigured into public ammunition; an alchemy no less corrosive now than in Callender’s time. In an era when leaked memos, viral clips, and breathless exposés dictate the tempo of our news cycles, the novel reminds us that scandal need not be fully factual to be fully effective. Its mere suggestion (whether tantalizing, grotesque, or half-believed) is often sufficient to dismantle reputations and redirect history’s course.
Equally striking is the novel’s insight into the machinery of narrative control. The Founding Fathers, portrayed not as monoliths of virtue but as canny architects of perception, were acutely aware that history is not only written by the victors but also curated by them. Safire draws an unbroken line from their machinations to the media strategies of modern politics, wherein shaping the story often eclipses the substance of governance itself. It made me ponder on whose truth are we consuming, and to what end?
Last but not least, there is the matter of the press itself - vulnerable, necessary, and often imperiled. Callender’s imprisonment under the Sedition Act is a warning about the perennial threats to free expression. In our own age, when journalists are maligned, surveilled, or silenced, Scandalmonger reasserts a timeless truth: that democracy cannot flourish without the voices willing to speak uncomfortably, inconveniently, and sometimes at great personal cost. Through the lens of the past, Safire delivers a fierce and enduring defense of a free and fearless press.
This quote casts a long and ominous shadow over modern events, its historical insight sharpening into present relevance with unsettling ease. The insurrection of January 6th, provoked by Donald Trump’s orchestrated delusions and theatrical indignation, was less an eruption than a culmination: a deliberate suspension of reason, incited to rupture the constitutional rhythm of peaceful succession.
Which makes me wonder, if James Callender were alive today and turned his trenchant pamphleteer’s pen toward Donald Trump, would he wield the new media landscape with the same ferocity and unyielding partisanship that marked his assaults on America’s early political giants? Probably. I imagine he would most likely interpret Trump’s hush‑money indictments, legal entanglements, Epstein involvement, and profane public tirades as ripe fodder for explosive exposés.
Anyhow, Scandalmonger is a historical fiction set in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the book explores political conspiracy and press manipulation of early American politics, centering on James Thomson Callender, once a respected pamphleteer and political commentator, he quickly becomes a controversial figure in the American press. Through his writing, he exposes scandals that rock the highest levels of the U.S. government involving prominent figures such as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Aaron Burr.
Safire, moonlighting from his former gig as a presidential speechwriter and professional opinion-haver, marshals an impressive arsenal of historical facts, combining meticulous historical research with vivid storytelling to depict the rise of political journalism, the noble mess that is freedom of the press, and the petty vendettas that helped shape the republic we know and occasionally tolerate today.
Safire’s writing style is a unique blend of historical accuracy, intellectual depth, and dramatic storytelling. The novel combines fact and fiction, with dramatized scenes grounded in real events and supported by extensive notes. Lending the book both scholarly weight and narrative intrigue.
One minor cavil, I found, lies in the novel’s dialogue; though undeniably erudite and rich with intellectual texture, it often bears a stiffness that distances rather than draws in; I found my mind wandering entirely too often. The language, though eloquent, forsakes the cadence of lived speech, sacrificing immediacy for a mannered stylization that I felt was estranged to the more fluid, organic exchanges typical of accessible historical fiction.
And although the book wasn’t lengthy, it unfolded with a kind of wearying persistence. There were stretches in which I feared I might not be able to endure. And yet, scattered throughout its pages were moments of unexpected clarity; sentences so finely wrought, so intimately true, that they pierced the monotony. In those rare instances, the burden of the journey felt, if not justified, then at least meaningfully interrupted.
“It is not that man is inherently good or bad. It’s when a man climbs up into the saddle, he is corrupted by the height.” -page 395
“Those on high who have the power to strike fear into people’s hearts should live with the risk of having fear struck into their own.” -page 396
These two quotes in particular really resonated with me in regards to the deep skepticism I feel towards unchecked power and a call for humility and balance in leadership. The higher one rises, the more perilous the distance between who one was and who one must now pretend to be; for power does not simply corrupt, but also estranges a man from the conditions of his own humility. To strike fear and feel none is to enter the realm of tyranny. However, to govern while also carrying the weight of dread, that is the uneasy contract of power lived with conscience.
Loyalty, also, is rarely reciprocal in the corridors of power; it is bartered, broken, and ultimately discarded when no longer useful. This breach echoes across time to our present moment, where public confidence in institutions and leaders is increasingly fragile, eroded by partisanship and the detritus of promises made but not kept.
With all that being said, at its core, Scandalmonger is an examination of the enduring potency of scandal as a political instrument. With surgical precision, Safire dissects the machinery through which private failings are transfigured into public ammunition; an alchemy no less corrosive now than in Callender’s time. In an era when leaked memos, viral clips, and breathless exposés dictate the tempo of our news cycles, the novel reminds us that scandal need not be fully factual to be fully effective. Its mere suggestion (whether tantalizing, grotesque, or half-believed) is often sufficient to dismantle reputations and redirect history’s course.
Equally striking is the novel’s insight into the machinery of narrative control. The Founding Fathers, portrayed not as monoliths of virtue but as canny architects of perception, were acutely aware that history is not only written by the victors but also curated by them. Safire draws an unbroken line from their machinations to the media strategies of modern politics, wherein shaping the story often eclipses the substance of governance itself. It made me ponder on whose truth are we consuming, and to what end?
Last but not least, there is the matter of the press itself - vulnerable, necessary, and often imperiled. Callender’s imprisonment under the Sedition Act is a warning about the perennial threats to free expression. In our own age, when journalists are maligned, surveilled, or silenced, Scandalmonger reasserts a timeless truth: that democracy cannot flourish without the voices willing to speak uncomfortably, inconveniently, and sometimes at great personal cost. Through the lens of the past, Safire delivers a fierce and enduring defense of a free and fearless press.
Laws against political writing have throughout history been used by tyrants, from the Roman emperors to the Star Chamber. They have been used as this Sedition bill will be used—to prevent the diffusion of knowledge, to throw a veil on their folly or their crimes. This odious bill will satisfy those mean passions which always denote little minds, and will be used to perpetuate their own tyranny. -page 142
This quote casts a long and ominous shadow over modern events, its historical insight sharpening into present relevance with unsettling ease. The insurrection of January 6th, provoked by Donald Trump’s orchestrated delusions and theatrical indignation, was less an eruption than a culmination: a deliberate suspension of reason, incited to rupture the constitutional rhythm of peaceful succession.
Which makes me wonder, if James Callender were alive today and turned his trenchant pamphleteer’s pen toward Donald Trump, would he wield the new media landscape with the same ferocity and unyielding partisanship that marked his assaults on America’s early political giants? Probably. I imagine he would most likely interpret Trump’s hush‑money indictments, legal entanglements, Epstein involvement, and profane public tirades as ripe fodder for explosive exposés.
August 11, 2019
Absorbing historical novel charts the rise of scandal culture in the early American Republic, focusing specifically on the era's leading muckrakers: James T. Callendar, the Scottish-born incendiary who exposed Alexander Hamilton's financial and romantic misdeeds, and William Cobbett, the English refugee who became the feared Federalist hatchet man "Peter Porcupine." Safire (yes, the Nixon speechwriter-turned-language columminst) crafts a narrative that's scrupulously, indeed painstakingly based on fact: I'd wager 60-70 percent of the dialogue comes from historical records, and even the book's more speculative passages (Callendar's mysterious death, Maria Reynolds' relationships with different political figures) seem reasonably grounded in reality. In truth, Safire's approach often risks becoming dry and stale; his dialogue-heavy approach leaves little room for interior lives or personal motivations to shine through. Fortunately, his subject's meaty enough to overcome this, particularly in Safire's vivid characterizations. His rich portrayals of Callendar, a Republican prophet without honor (imprisoned under Adams, then betrayed by Jefferson after 1800, he goes on to expose Jefferson's liaisons with Sally Hemings); Cobbett, a feckless Tory seeking to convert America to monarchism; the much-maligned Maria Reynolds, here a woman of sexual appetites and cunning but also intelligence, self-preservation and a deeply felt sense of dignity; brief but incisive sketches of Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and the rest of the era's Usual Suspects. The book ably captures the venom and violence of 18th Century newspaper wars, reminding us that American politics has never been so high-minded and impersonal as we've thought.
Read
December 16, 2016Anther stoop book, and in retrospect I’d have been better of leaving it there. A novelization about the muckrakers who came to prominence in the first few years of America’s history, and their effects on and interaction with the great men of the age. It’s a fascinating episode badly treated. Safire’s fictionalization of the events, to my mind, offers the worst of both possible worlds. Most of the text consists of fake dialogue cribbed from the letters of the major characters, and so it sounds overly formal and jarring. But here and there Safire feels comfortable departing abruptly from history, inserting (to my count) two ahistoric love affairs and a murder. Essentially, any time anything interesting happened in the book I would flip to the end to inevitably discover that it was something Safire had whole-cloth invented. There are interesting things that have been done blurring the boundaries between fiction and fact (Simon Schama attempted something similar with Dead Certainties etc. but Safire doesn’t do them. Better off grabbing one of the many readable histories of the era if you're interested.
June 18, 2009
Safire has done his homework, creating a fictionalized version of the Pamphleteers accounts of political events and scandals circa 1800 in the U.S. A little slow but interesting to read about the accounts of criminal trials during the time of the Sedition Act. American history fanatics will savor every paragraph of this well written historical fiction that's filled with mostly facts.
July 8, 2025
I picked this book up in a street-side lending library. Looked interesting enough. I was rapt from the first chapter. The author, a former Nixon speechwriter, clearly has command of prose; providing enough detail to keep the reader interested, revealing the rest later to show the full, complicated entanglement of characters.
The central theme is the fictional part of the story, but it provides a great launching pad to fully explore how politicians and press used each other expertly to influence electors and voters.
If you like true history, with a bit of fiction thrown in, this is definitely a good read. Each time I read history, I realize our current divisiveness is not so new. I realize our press is no more divided today than the press of 200 years ago.
The central theme is the fictional part of the story, but it provides a great launching pad to fully explore how politicians and press used each other expertly to influence electors and voters.
If you like true history, with a bit of fiction thrown in, this is definitely a good read. Each time I read history, I realize our current divisiveness is not so new. I realize our press is no more divided today than the press of 200 years ago.
June 18, 2009
Usually I am skeptical of "historical novels" or "docu-dramas." The authors usually do NOT intend to separate fact from fiction and, but choose to cloud their story to present something closer to what they "would have liked to have really happened" so that it fits within their ideology. Accuracy be damned! Such is the arrogance of many of today's history story-tellers. A popular example of this is Oliver Stone.
William Safire approaches things differently. He has done his homework and actually knows his subject intimately. He has done meticulous research and reading and knows how to tell a story. His fans can expect a thought provoking and intelligent discussion that will stem from Safire's trademark word-wrangling.
"Scandalmonger" pours old wine into new skins. Much of the back-story and characters are familiar to any student of American history--amateur or professional (read the above discription). The time period is known but perhaps forgetten. Safire attempts and succeeds in "fleshing-out" the history. He insures that much of the dialogue is actual phrases and vocabulary that wold have been used, because he lifts it directly from documents and letters of Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton and others, for example. Safire only introduces their words within the proper context of the scene, though he does take advantage of dramatic license to manipulate the dialogue to suit the context.
"So what?" you say, because you understand that many "docu-drama-ists" do the same thing. True, but here lies the catch: Instead of a mere disclaimer at the beginning of a story which is forgotten by the reader/viewer later (which Safire does write), he details page by page, chapter by chapter what is fact--supported by the documentation--and what is imagination. He does not hide the use of fiction for his own ideologies and admits when he is fabricating the scene or dialogue or character. But, like a good storyteller, he understands that these fictional elements assist the story. They fill in the "historical gaps" so to speak.
Any student of history has read a history book they felt was dry. It cannot be avoided within the intellectual field of study. Historians that survive and are successful--and are re-read--are those that possess the talent for telling a vivid story and bringing the story to life for the reader. They adhere to the root of history, that is "to tell a story." To make history dry and only for the university elite, defeats the purpose of history, which is for it to be remembered and heeded by all.
"Scandalmonger" tells the story as it could be told today. It may not be history, but I believe it could be close. The credibility in this opinion is because of Mr. Safire's devotion to accuracy and his use of extensive documentation. Perhaps a theme within this story is that America has not grown up that much in 200 years. The press will still take to task hypocrite politicians, the public will lap it up and criticize themselves, but continue to forgive their leaders. The politicians feel they are above the moral accountability and continue to be corruptible. And good leaders, fearing the "scandalmongering" will fear running for office and the world will be left with mediocrity in their leadership.
William Safire approaches things differently. He has done his homework and actually knows his subject intimately. He has done meticulous research and reading and knows how to tell a story. His fans can expect a thought provoking and intelligent discussion that will stem from Safire's trademark word-wrangling.
"Scandalmonger" pours old wine into new skins. Much of the back-story and characters are familiar to any student of American history--amateur or professional (read the above discription). The time period is known but perhaps forgetten. Safire attempts and succeeds in "fleshing-out" the history. He insures that much of the dialogue is actual phrases and vocabulary that wold have been used, because he lifts it directly from documents and letters of Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton and others, for example. Safire only introduces their words within the proper context of the scene, though he does take advantage of dramatic license to manipulate the dialogue to suit the context.
"So what?" you say, because you understand that many "docu-drama-ists" do the same thing. True, but here lies the catch: Instead of a mere disclaimer at the beginning of a story which is forgotten by the reader/viewer later (which Safire does write), he details page by page, chapter by chapter what is fact--supported by the documentation--and what is imagination. He does not hide the use of fiction for his own ideologies and admits when he is fabricating the scene or dialogue or character. But, like a good storyteller, he understands that these fictional elements assist the story. They fill in the "historical gaps" so to speak.
Any student of history has read a history book they felt was dry. It cannot be avoided within the intellectual field of study. Historians that survive and are successful--and are re-read--are those that possess the talent for telling a vivid story and bringing the story to life for the reader. They adhere to the root of history, that is "to tell a story." To make history dry and only for the university elite, defeats the purpose of history, which is for it to be remembered and heeded by all.
"Scandalmonger" tells the story as it could be told today. It may not be history, but I believe it could be close. The credibility in this opinion is because of Mr. Safire's devotion to accuracy and his use of extensive documentation. Perhaps a theme within this story is that America has not grown up that much in 200 years. The press will still take to task hypocrite politicians, the public will lap it up and criticize themselves, but continue to forgive their leaders. The politicians feel they are above the moral accountability and continue to be corruptible. And good leaders, fearing the "scandalmongering" will fear running for office and the world will be left with mediocrity in their leadership.
August 1, 2020
From an educational standpoint, there was much of interest in this novel. Anecdotes of many of the early trials conducted in this country contained a rather horrifying level of blatant injustice. I can only be glad that eventually some level of sanity made its way into our laws. I felt the same horror about much of the early legislative branch's shenanigans--I guess politicians are politicians, and the founding fathers were no better at selflessness than those that serve now. It was also a somewhat grim realization that scandal is what has always sold newspapers, though at least those early "newsmen" didn't even try to pretend to objectivity. Even so, there was something admirable in the way they stood for what they believed in, fought against injustice and incursions into their Constitutional freedom of speech, and tried to advance the goals of their respective political parties.
The main problem with the book is that, like so many other examples of historical fiction written by non-fiction authors, it was dry and stiff and very slow to get through. It is admirable that Safire wanted to draw the historical figures' dialogue from their writings, but it led to a lot of repetition and no fluidity to any of the characterizations. The use of so much obviously genuine text made it that much more jarring when he decided to inject a bit of "color" to the story--how would he know the difference in the way Alexander Hamilton approached love making to that of Aaron Burr? I mean, I don't really care whether both of them did or did not have affairs with Maria Reynolds, it just made me recoil a bit when I hit the part where he contrasted their "styles". And that was representative of all the other cases where he tried to inject some "character" into the stories--it just always felt flat and awkward. It meant that it took me way longer to finish this book than it should have (because I frequently nodded off while reading.)
The main problem with the book is that, like so many other examples of historical fiction written by non-fiction authors, it was dry and stiff and very slow to get through. It is admirable that Safire wanted to draw the historical figures' dialogue from their writings, but it led to a lot of repetition and no fluidity to any of the characterizations. The use of so much obviously genuine text made it that much more jarring when he decided to inject a bit of "color" to the story--how would he know the difference in the way Alexander Hamilton approached love making to that of Aaron Burr? I mean, I don't really care whether both of them did or did not have affairs with Maria Reynolds, it just made me recoil a bit when I hit the part where he contrasted their "styles". And that was representative of all the other cases where he tried to inject some "character" into the stories--it just always felt flat and awkward. It meant that it took me way longer to finish this book than it should have (because I frequently nodded off while reading.)
May 2, 2016
Good book. Well worth reading or listening to. The recorded version is very well performed. The book is rather long but manages to stay interesting. I experience its weakness as these: Some of the characters are not well drawn so it's hard to distinguish one person from another, at least not until they have come up repeatedly. There are more characters than in a Russian novel which compounds that issue.
The novel does give much detail about what went on, frequently on a week-by-week to month-by-month basis in the first 10 years of the American democracy and helps understand the history of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In this it is outstanding.
The novel does give much detail about what went on, frequently on a week-by-week to month-by-month basis in the first 10 years of the American democracy and helps understand the history of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In this it is outstanding.
January 22, 2013
Safire's writing brings to life the men of that time.
November 11, 2017
From a reader's standpoint, this novel may be a bit dry at first, but the ironies and surprised revealed in the private and not so private lives of these historical figures makes up for that. Mr. Safire bases his story on historical documents and dialogues and states that most of what his characters say can be accepted as true. Beginning with Alexander Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds which Hamilton admitted to in order not to be charged with speculating with government securities to Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings...it's all there.
In "The Hamilton Affair," some expressed surprise that Hamilton would let his personal reputation be ruined rather than allow his professional integrity to be compromised. "The voting public will never elect an adulterer to office," one says. Oh no...never. President Adams excuses the affair by saying Hamilton "suffers from a superabundance of excretions." Perhaps some of today's politicians should remember that one.
Whatever the reason, it Either way, it effectively ended Hamilton's political career and his hopes for the presidency.
The catalyst running through the story is Callendar, a Scots journalist, the scandalmonger of the title. Though the author states the affair Callendar has with Maria Reynolds is fictional, it seems the lady seduced everyone else, sleeping with Hamilton and his some-day murderer Aaron Burr at the same time, and several others. In fact, it's suggested Hamilton's death at Burr's hand was really suicide by duello.
The novel ends with Callendar's revelation of Jefferson's association with his slave Sally Hemmings. IApparently many people in Virginia were aware of this and giving their rationalization (Jefferson told his wife on her deathbed he'd never marry again, so he turned to Sally for consolation. After all, Sally was his wife's half-sister through her father and was therefore three-quarters white, so...) An abundance of children calling Sally "Mother" and having Jefferson's red hair did nothing to squelch Callendar's accusations. History and modern DNA testing have justified the scandalmonger on that one.
Each page seems stuffed with revelations, accusations, and enough scandals and cover-ups for several novels. Indeed, it makes one wonder how they had time to devote to the actual running of the government with all these intrigues, back-stabbing, and subterfuges going on.
This novel will definitely reveal that those men we've always considered so noble and self-sacrificing had feet of clay up to their knees. They lie, cheat, steal, envy, gossip, and occasionally if nor murder, at least incite others to it, with the best of them. No dignified gentleman wearing knee breeches and powdered wigs, looking calm as they sign the Declaration of Independence, but men who make up the first deportation laws to rid themselves of immigrant journalists opposing their point of view (like James Callendar), and help ruin the political careers of those they can't get rid of (such as Matthew Lyon who became the first Congressman arrested under the Alien and Sedition Act).
Here are their opinions in their own words, giving a narrative tweak by the author, proving the Founding Fathers were anything but fatherly, and those that were might've had the best intentions but went about proving it the wrong way. It's a story that will make everyone more thoughtful than ever as they consider whatever the current political situation.
This novel was read as a library rental and no remuneration was involved in the writing of this review.
In "The Hamilton Affair," some expressed surprise that Hamilton would let his personal reputation be ruined rather than allow his professional integrity to be compromised. "The voting public will never elect an adulterer to office," one says. Oh no...never. President Adams excuses the affair by saying Hamilton "suffers from a superabundance of excretions." Perhaps some of today's politicians should remember that one.
Whatever the reason, it Either way, it effectively ended Hamilton's political career and his hopes for the presidency.
The catalyst running through the story is Callendar, a Scots journalist, the scandalmonger of the title. Though the author states the affair Callendar has with Maria Reynolds is fictional, it seems the lady seduced everyone else, sleeping with Hamilton and his some-day murderer Aaron Burr at the same time, and several others. In fact, it's suggested Hamilton's death at Burr's hand was really suicide by duello.
The novel ends with Callendar's revelation of Jefferson's association with his slave Sally Hemmings. IApparently many people in Virginia were aware of this and giving their rationalization (Jefferson told his wife on her deathbed he'd never marry again, so he turned to Sally for consolation. After all, Sally was his wife's half-sister through her father and was therefore three-quarters white, so...) An abundance of children calling Sally "Mother" and having Jefferson's red hair did nothing to squelch Callendar's accusations. History and modern DNA testing have justified the scandalmonger on that one.
Each page seems stuffed with revelations, accusations, and enough scandals and cover-ups for several novels. Indeed, it makes one wonder how they had time to devote to the actual running of the government with all these intrigues, back-stabbing, and subterfuges going on.
This novel will definitely reveal that those men we've always considered so noble and self-sacrificing had feet of clay up to their knees. They lie, cheat, steal, envy, gossip, and occasionally if nor murder, at least incite others to it, with the best of them. No dignified gentleman wearing knee breeches and powdered wigs, looking calm as they sign the Declaration of Independence, but men who make up the first deportation laws to rid themselves of immigrant journalists opposing their point of view (like James Callendar), and help ruin the political careers of those they can't get rid of (such as Matthew Lyon who became the first Congressman arrested under the Alien and Sedition Act).
Here are their opinions in their own words, giving a narrative tweak by the author, proving the Founding Fathers were anything but fatherly, and those that were might've had the best intentions but went about proving it the wrong way. It's a story that will make everyone more thoughtful than ever as they consider whatever the current political situation.
This novel was read as a library rental and no remuneration was involved in the writing of this review.
November 28, 2013
William Safire doesn't pull any punches. In his new book, he quotes the clerk of the House of Representatives dismissing one of the most famous presidential hopefuls: "A man who carried on with a whore in his own home when his wife was away? And then brought shame on his wife and children by confessing to it publicly? Never!"
We can hardly blame Safire for leaking this juicy outrage. After all, it's already 200 years old.
"Scandalmonger" is a smart, rollicking dramatization of the scandals that shook Thomas Jefferson's administration and barred Alexander Hamilton from becoming president. History has never been so much fun. Almost all the dialogue, like the clerk's comment above, is constructed from surviving letters, diaries, speeches, and essays. The result is like pressing your ear to the door of America's most dynamic decade. "My dirty little secret is that I used to be a speechwriter," the former Nixon aide confesses.
In this meticulously footnoted novel, the similarities between President Clinton's challenges and those that beset the Founding Fathers are sometimes striking, sometimes even comic. But the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist insists that wasn't his design.
"I didn't go into this book saying, 'OK, I'm going to write a book about the previous scandals that will illustrate the current ones,' " he says during a recent interview at Simon & Schuster. "I got into it because I was interested in 'Peter Porcupine,' William Cobbett, the critic, the first media giant."
Safire eventually decided to focus his novel on Cobbett's archrival, James Callender, an incendiary journalist and editor fleeing from Scotland. Callender alternately flattered and tormented America's Founding Fathers for 10 years before his mysterious drowning in 1803.
Safire's investigation into Callender's life led him to the exposs of Hamilton and Jefferson. "At that point," he says, "the vividness of the comparison struck me because Jefferson is William Clinton's middle name."
Pressed to acknowledge the striking echo of Clinton's troubles with the press, the venerable word maven raises his voice in mock indignation: "I had my head in the 18th century! That's why I put the notes in the back," he laughs, "for someone who says, 'Oh, he's straining now to make it look like it's all the same,' or 'everybody did it.'"
Fortunately, the academic baggage has been stowed in an "underbook" that advises interested readers about the accuracy of every scene and reference. "I like that approach," he says, "particularly in a time of docu-dramas and 'faction' rather than 'fiction,' where you get confused about what happened and what didn't. In my books, and this one in particular, I say, 'This is the history and this is the twistery - the addition that I make so that the reader can read the book as a novel."
A novel history
Safire's most significant ahistorical twist in "Scandalmonger" is the invention of a romance between Callender and Maria Reynolds, the woman at the center of the calumny that derailed Hamilton's presidential ambitions.
Secretly encouraged by Vice President Jefferson, Callender rabidly pursued claims of Hamilton's alleged profiteering after the Revolutionary War. In order to defend his integrity and the national financial system he had designed, Hamilton was forced to confess to an affair with Mrs. Reynolds that explained - Callender claimed obscured - his peculiar financial arrangements.
At the suggestion of his editor, Safire pursued this woman and made her affection for Callender, the nation's most outraged and outrageous journalist, the spine of his novel.
"As a historian, I didn't have much to work with," he confesses, "because all the historians at the time either dismiss her as a 'blackmailing whore' or say she was a 'mysterious woman about which little is known.'"
During his research, however, he discovered a brief description of Mrs. Reynolds in the memoir of a Philadelphia merchant who met her a few years after the scandal. "That fleshed out the character, if you'll pardon the expression," he grins.
In the novel, Safire has cleverly retained her coy nature. While she's affectionate and genteel, she manages men effectively enough to leave a degree of ambiguity about her real nature. Pairing the object of Hamilton's affections with the journalist determined to expose those affections proves a clever way of focusing what is sometimes a thicket of historical details.
Congress shall make no law ...
The novel's real subject and the one closest to Safire's heart is the freedom of the press, a liberty that evolved haphazardly and was almost snuffed out by President Jefferson's efforts to silence Callender.
Infuriated by the new president's inadequate payment for his scandalmongering stories, Callender turned on his old patron with a vengeance and dragged the nation through salacious stories about Jefferson's affair with one of his slaves.
"Politicians who were in opposition were desperate to defend the right to dissent publicly. But as soon as they got into positions of power and felt the lash of dissent, they turned around and tried to stop it," Safire says.
As his novel makes clear, government efforts to restrict the press's freedom are fraught with tyrannical potential. Safire, like Hamilton before him, prefers to risk putting the press in the public's hands. "When the poking into private lives goes too far and there's a public revulsion at it and editors or broadcasters or cable operators realize that it's costing them readers, they'll change."
But for 200 years, American newspapers have proven the sad practicality of Callender's method: People are as quick to condemn intrusions into private life as they are to read those intrusions. "I defended Gary Hart when he was tracked down and - he feels - entrapped," Safire says, "and I defended Bob Packwood when I felt he was unfairly attacked. I'm bipartisan in my feeling about privacy."
Today, Safire sees the media's freedom more threatened by consolidation than government restraint. "I'm antimerger, by nature," he says, acknowledging the irony of working for The New York Times, one of the nation's leading media consolidators. "The constant reduction in the number of choices people have to make is a danger."
"The counter to it," he claims, "is that the Internet allows hundreds of thousands of people to publish, and you don't have to have a heavy capital investment in order to express yourself. The Internet is today's version of the pamphleteers" of Callender's day.
But even the World Wide Web can't compete with the speed or spark of Callender's 200-year-old pen. "With that combination of good reporting and innate viciousness, I don't think anybody quite matches him today," Safire says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2000/0120/p1...
We can hardly blame Safire for leaking this juicy outrage. After all, it's already 200 years old.
"Scandalmonger" is a smart, rollicking dramatization of the scandals that shook Thomas Jefferson's administration and barred Alexander Hamilton from becoming president. History has never been so much fun. Almost all the dialogue, like the clerk's comment above, is constructed from surviving letters, diaries, speeches, and essays. The result is like pressing your ear to the door of America's most dynamic decade. "My dirty little secret is that I used to be a speechwriter," the former Nixon aide confesses.
In this meticulously footnoted novel, the similarities between President Clinton's challenges and those that beset the Founding Fathers are sometimes striking, sometimes even comic. But the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist insists that wasn't his design.
"I didn't go into this book saying, 'OK, I'm going to write a book about the previous scandals that will illustrate the current ones,' " he says during a recent interview at Simon & Schuster. "I got into it because I was interested in 'Peter Porcupine,' William Cobbett, the critic, the first media giant."
Safire eventually decided to focus his novel on Cobbett's archrival, James Callender, an incendiary journalist and editor fleeing from Scotland. Callender alternately flattered and tormented America's Founding Fathers for 10 years before his mysterious drowning in 1803.
Safire's investigation into Callender's life led him to the exposs of Hamilton and Jefferson. "At that point," he says, "the vividness of the comparison struck me because Jefferson is William Clinton's middle name."
Pressed to acknowledge the striking echo of Clinton's troubles with the press, the venerable word maven raises his voice in mock indignation: "I had my head in the 18th century! That's why I put the notes in the back," he laughs, "for someone who says, 'Oh, he's straining now to make it look like it's all the same,' or 'everybody did it.'"
Fortunately, the academic baggage has been stowed in an "underbook" that advises interested readers about the accuracy of every scene and reference. "I like that approach," he says, "particularly in a time of docu-dramas and 'faction' rather than 'fiction,' where you get confused about what happened and what didn't. In my books, and this one in particular, I say, 'This is the history and this is the twistery - the addition that I make so that the reader can read the book as a novel."
A novel history
Safire's most significant ahistorical twist in "Scandalmonger" is the invention of a romance between Callender and Maria Reynolds, the woman at the center of the calumny that derailed Hamilton's presidential ambitions.
Secretly encouraged by Vice President Jefferson, Callender rabidly pursued claims of Hamilton's alleged profiteering after the Revolutionary War. In order to defend his integrity and the national financial system he had designed, Hamilton was forced to confess to an affair with Mrs. Reynolds that explained - Callender claimed obscured - his peculiar financial arrangements.
At the suggestion of his editor, Safire pursued this woman and made her affection for Callender, the nation's most outraged and outrageous journalist, the spine of his novel.
"As a historian, I didn't have much to work with," he confesses, "because all the historians at the time either dismiss her as a 'blackmailing whore' or say she was a 'mysterious woman about which little is known.'"
During his research, however, he discovered a brief description of Mrs. Reynolds in the memoir of a Philadelphia merchant who met her a few years after the scandal. "That fleshed out the character, if you'll pardon the expression," he grins.
In the novel, Safire has cleverly retained her coy nature. While she's affectionate and genteel, she manages men effectively enough to leave a degree of ambiguity about her real nature. Pairing the object of Hamilton's affections with the journalist determined to expose those affections proves a clever way of focusing what is sometimes a thicket of historical details.
Congress shall make no law ...
The novel's real subject and the one closest to Safire's heart is the freedom of the press, a liberty that evolved haphazardly and was almost snuffed out by President Jefferson's efforts to silence Callender.
Infuriated by the new president's inadequate payment for his scandalmongering stories, Callender turned on his old patron with a vengeance and dragged the nation through salacious stories about Jefferson's affair with one of his slaves.
"Politicians who were in opposition were desperate to defend the right to dissent publicly. But as soon as they got into positions of power and felt the lash of dissent, they turned around and tried to stop it," Safire says.
As his novel makes clear, government efforts to restrict the press's freedom are fraught with tyrannical potential. Safire, like Hamilton before him, prefers to risk putting the press in the public's hands. "When the poking into private lives goes too far and there's a public revulsion at it and editors or broadcasters or cable operators realize that it's costing them readers, they'll change."
But for 200 years, American newspapers have proven the sad practicality of Callender's method: People are as quick to condemn intrusions into private life as they are to read those intrusions. "I defended Gary Hart when he was tracked down and - he feels - entrapped," Safire says, "and I defended Bob Packwood when I felt he was unfairly attacked. I'm bipartisan in my feeling about privacy."
Today, Safire sees the media's freedom more threatened by consolidation than government restraint. "I'm antimerger, by nature," he says, acknowledging the irony of working for The New York Times, one of the nation's leading media consolidators. "The constant reduction in the number of choices people have to make is a danger."
"The counter to it," he claims, "is that the Internet allows hundreds of thousands of people to publish, and you don't have to have a heavy capital investment in order to express yourself. The Internet is today's version of the pamphleteers" of Callender's day.
But even the World Wide Web can't compete with the speed or spark of Callender's 200-year-old pen. "With that combination of good reporting and innate viciousness, I don't think anybody quite matches him today," Safire says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2000/0120/p1...
September 26, 2020
This was an interesting read. The book is sometimes plodding, and sometimes reads like narrative nonfiction even though it is a novel. But I was interested the entire time, and Safire's sharp historical research allows him to capture both the events of his story and the way his characters must have felt about the events they lived through.
Scandalmonger is also interesting because of issues it brings up to a modern American. We prize our freedom of the press, but this novel really drives home how hard won that was, and how undemocratic early politicians in the United States truly were. Negative attitudes towards immigrants, partisan judges, and biased press outlets abound. We live in strange times, but this novel made them seem a little less so, which was both depressing and comforting. You will not read this book and come away with the idea that anyone in it is a hero. But you might gain a renewed appreciation for a free press.
Scandalmonger is also interesting because of issues it brings up to a modern American. We prize our freedom of the press, but this novel really drives home how hard won that was, and how undemocratic early politicians in the United States truly were. Negative attitudes towards immigrants, partisan judges, and biased press outlets abound. We live in strange times, but this novel made them seem a little less so, which was both depressing and comforting. You will not read this book and come away with the idea that anyone in it is a hero. But you might gain a renewed appreciation for a free press.
March 15, 2020
I've had this on the shelves for two decades and never read. This was actually quite enjoyable as I really liked the getting to know the various characters (Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, and others.) Our current zany political times clearly are no match for the deep political animosity between many of these competing factions of the early years of our republic. Lots of political intrigue, personal scandal, a relentless media, and some controlling women to boot. An enjoyable narrative with a good dose of history and wickedly delicious writing to boot.
November 22, 2021
Ah the good old days, when newspaper editors openly proclaimed their political bias and everyone engaged in hypocrisy. When were these days? The turn of the 19th century in the United States. Many of Founding Fathers are depicted but primarily this is the story of two minor figures, James Calendar, newspaper editor, and Marie Reynolds Clement, who may have been a con woman, victimized wife and mother or a strong, willful person swimming subtlety in sea of sexism and power (or perhaps she was all three).
April 29, 2018
Not a book you'll zip through, but worth your time if you enjoy historical novels.
"Scandalmonger" is a refreshing reminder that our contemporary scandal-hungry media, the "fake news" and its avid consumers, is not a new phenomenon. Not new at all.
"Scandalmonger" is a refreshing reminder that our contemporary scandal-hungry media, the "fake news" and its avid consumers, is not a new phenomenon. Not new at all.
October 13, 2017
Pamphleteers. Gossip rags. Nothing much changes. Hamilton and Jefferson at their worst.
May 1, 2019
Interesting take on the history of some of our founding fathers. Also a great primer to the Hamilton musical that's out now!
September 29, 2020
Dense, interesting premise, but plodding style. Surprised, experienced Safire as a sharp and keen writer, when I read essays decades ago.
Read
January 25, 2025didn't finish
January 8, 2017
In the context of fiction, even if nominally "historical" fiction, I can excuse a lot, but not everything.
I can excuse poetic licences and inaccuracy even when the author purports its work to be God given report of the documented facts: I have a pc and an internet connection to check facts on my own and form my own opinion on the events that are subject of the fictionalised account. Now, one of the pillars of this book is Callender's (the scandalmonger) assumption that Hamilton's affair was a cover for a real speculation scheme on Hamilton's part - with the excuse of a supposedly extended research to which the author dedicates an entire "underbook" of notes, including a two lines statement by Jacob Clingman (Maria's new lover and later second husband) to Monroe of 1 January 1793, we are given an appaling portrayal of an Alexander Hamilton as debauched seducer of teenaged married mothers, intriguer, forger of documents, ruthless liar who would tarnish the reputation of a poor woman to save his public profile.
Well, I've done MY research and in this respect let me just say that I felt sick at Hamilton being portrayed as seducing a 19 years old Maria 4 years before the documented affair "because circumstantial evidence says the Hamiltons and the Reynolds were in New York at the same time" when documented evidence in Clingman's (not Hamilton's) deposition sees Maria in February 1792 admitting of the Reynolds' link with Hamilton being only a few months old. Furthermore, the letter by Jeremiah Wadsworth to Hamilton dated 2 August 1797 relates how Maria had applied to both him and even Governor Mifflin and that in trying to get them help her obtain her husband's release from prison she had spontaneously told both the story of her first acquaintance and following "amour" with Hamilton in words that very interestingly match Hamilton's recount of their first encounter as reported since the first draft of the Reynolds pamphlet of July 1797 (before Wadsworth's letter). You may read Warwirth's letter to Hamilton here https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Corr....
Whatever I can turn a blind eye on in fiction, I cannot excuse deliberate manipulation or partial if not partisan use of records bent to the author's final goal to gain money by adding useless posthumous infamy to a man who paid dearly for his one time private weakness and even stooped to recount and fully prove in his "Reynolds Pamphlet" the sad tale of his flawed human nature with all its consequences. So long for your underbook and deliberately omitted records Mr Safire, Hell has a special place for people like you.
Furthermore, what I cannot excuse in a fiction novel is said novel to be BORING. The author's choice to relay word by word the written documents of the time as dialogues (though twisted and more than once deliberately misplaced in terme of timeline) to seek an appearance of plausibility in his work makes simply for a struggling wooden prose and stiff odd-sounding exchanges between the characters. For a book that had an incredible potential of drama in setting out to fictionalise the dawning of smear campaigns in the press in the first political fights in newly born United States of America, even without the need to distort the truth, this novel fails to accomplish its mission and never kindles a single spark of emotion or interest.
If you are interested in the history of the time, a good biography of any of the men depicted in this book will serve you better. If you are looking for a good fiction novel, look somewhere else.
I can excuse poetic licences and inaccuracy even when the author purports its work to be God given report of the documented facts: I have a pc and an internet connection to check facts on my own and form my own opinion on the events that are subject of the fictionalised account. Now, one of the pillars of this book is Callender's (the scandalmonger) assumption that Hamilton's affair was a cover for a real speculation scheme on Hamilton's part - with the excuse of a supposedly extended research to which the author dedicates an entire "underbook" of notes, including a two lines statement by Jacob Clingman (Maria's new lover and later second husband) to Monroe of 1 January 1793, we are given an appaling portrayal of an Alexander Hamilton as debauched seducer of teenaged married mothers, intriguer, forger of documents, ruthless liar who would tarnish the reputation of a poor woman to save his public profile.
Well, I've done MY research and in this respect let me just say that I felt sick at Hamilton being portrayed as seducing a 19 years old Maria 4 years before the documented affair "because circumstantial evidence says the Hamiltons and the Reynolds were in New York at the same time" when documented evidence in Clingman's (not Hamilton's) deposition sees Maria in February 1792 admitting of the Reynolds' link with Hamilton being only a few months old. Furthermore, the letter by Jeremiah Wadsworth to Hamilton dated 2 August 1797 relates how Maria had applied to both him and even Governor Mifflin and that in trying to get them help her obtain her husband's release from prison she had spontaneously told both the story of her first acquaintance and following "amour" with Hamilton in words that very interestingly match Hamilton's recount of their first encounter as reported since the first draft of the Reynolds pamphlet of July 1797 (before Wadsworth's letter). You may read Warwirth's letter to Hamilton here https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Corr....
Whatever I can turn a blind eye on in fiction, I cannot excuse deliberate manipulation or partial if not partisan use of records bent to the author's final goal to gain money by adding useless posthumous infamy to a man who paid dearly for his one time private weakness and even stooped to recount and fully prove in his "Reynolds Pamphlet" the sad tale of his flawed human nature with all its consequences. So long for your underbook and deliberately omitted records Mr Safire, Hell has a special place for people like you.
Furthermore, what I cannot excuse in a fiction novel is said novel to be BORING. The author's choice to relay word by word the written documents of the time as dialogues (though twisted and more than once deliberately misplaced in terme of timeline) to seek an appearance of plausibility in his work makes simply for a struggling wooden prose and stiff odd-sounding exchanges between the characters. For a book that had an incredible potential of drama in setting out to fictionalise the dawning of smear campaigns in the press in the first political fights in newly born United States of America, even without the need to distort the truth, this novel fails to accomplish its mission and never kindles a single spark of emotion or interest.
If you are interested in the history of the time, a good biography of any of the men depicted in this book will serve you better. If you are looking for a good fiction novel, look somewhere else.
December 31, 2008
It's not every day that a fictional novel is published with source notes and a bibliography. But this isn't your usual novel. As Safire explains both before and after the book, this novel is a true account based on contemporary documentation. He's taken much of the words written by the historical characters in letters and presented them as dialog between the characters. It's a unique approach that makes for an entertaining and informative read.
But what's the book about? Political intrigue, mainly. Scandal and those who spread it. Power politics. The quest for power. Even better, the characters are America's founding fathers, the true greatest American generation.
The scandalmonger is James Callendar, an anti-federalist immigrant fleeing imprisonment in his native Scotland. Thomas Jefferson provides him some financial support for his writing, which flogs Federalist John Adams and his supporters. But when Jefferson becomes president, Callendar feels slighted by his former benefactor and turns on him and other anti-federalists by breaking the Sally Hemmings story.
This description is too brief to cover the scope of this sweeping book. It includes the controversy over the Alien-Sedition Act, tension between France and America and the threat of war between the two countries, and the role of the press in the entire affair.
At that time, anyone with some money (or with a supporter with money) could open a paper. The editor wrote many of the "news" stories, which blended news with opinion. There was no separation between the news and editorial pages. So you had blatantly partisan newspapers, both slamming the opposition and savaging the competition by name on a daily basis. Truth mattered much less than victory.
All this reminded me of the Internet. The scandalmongers of yesterday are ancestors for the bloggers of the present day. Anyone can open a web site or get free space (or a Goodreads account!) and then spout their opinions. It's really a wonderful thing.
Anyway, back to the book. Safire is a fine writer and knows his stuff, which makes a great book. The only nitpick I have is that it's a bit long and maybe overly ambitious. Sometimes, Callendar goes missing for several pages at a time as Safire switches to other viewpoints and scandals having nothing to with Callendar. But that's a minor thing.
But one last thing before I go. I've long admired James Monroe, since the fifth grade, in fact, when I wrote an essay about him. But this book shows that he was one cold-hearted, politically calculating SOB. Not sure if that changes my opinion of him, though.
But what's the book about? Political intrigue, mainly. Scandal and those who spread it. Power politics. The quest for power. Even better, the characters are America's founding fathers, the true greatest American generation.
The scandalmonger is James Callendar, an anti-federalist immigrant fleeing imprisonment in his native Scotland. Thomas Jefferson provides him some financial support for his writing, which flogs Federalist John Adams and his supporters. But when Jefferson becomes president, Callendar feels slighted by his former benefactor and turns on him and other anti-federalists by breaking the Sally Hemmings story.
This description is too brief to cover the scope of this sweeping book. It includes the controversy over the Alien-Sedition Act, tension between France and America and the threat of war between the two countries, and the role of the press in the entire affair.
At that time, anyone with some money (or with a supporter with money) could open a paper. The editor wrote many of the "news" stories, which blended news with opinion. There was no separation between the news and editorial pages. So you had blatantly partisan newspapers, both slamming the opposition and savaging the competition by name on a daily basis. Truth mattered much less than victory.
All this reminded me of the Internet. The scandalmongers of yesterday are ancestors for the bloggers of the present day. Anyone can open a web site or get free space (or a Goodreads account!) and then spout their opinions. It's really a wonderful thing.
Anyway, back to the book. Safire is a fine writer and knows his stuff, which makes a great book. The only nitpick I have is that it's a bit long and maybe overly ambitious. Sometimes, Callendar goes missing for several pages at a time as Safire switches to other viewpoints and scandals having nothing to with Callendar. But that's a minor thing.
But one last thing before I go. I've long admired James Monroe, since the fifth grade, in fact, when I wrote an essay about him. But this book shows that he was one cold-hearted, politically calculating SOB. Not sure if that changes my opinion of him, though.
August 9, 2013
Early American political history is frought with scandal, intrigue, plots and schemes. From the moment Alexander Hamilton set himself in opposition to the Republican forefathers, the United States established a two-party system that often seems as if it divides the country rather than unites it. For those who feel that the current sentiments between Republicans and Democrats are filled with unparalleled animosity towards each other, you should definitely read Scandalmonger.
In this work of historical fiction, William Safire deftly explains and exposes the politics of the early 19th century with the true story of James Callender, pampheleteer and scandalmonger. Hired by Thomas Jefferson to help defeat the Federalists in the next election, Jefferson finds himself the target of Callender’s sharp barbs when he distances himself from the writer once he has won election.
From the scandals of Hamilton, including the charges of financial misdealings and the Mrs. Reynolds affair to exposing Jefferson’s relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, Scandalmongers is as exciting to read today as it was for those reading the pamphlets of yesteryear. I was impressed with Safire’s extensive research and use of letters to recreate real conversations. Where he creates fiction for the purpose of story development, he is forthcoming with his readers in the notes in the back of the book.
In this work of historical fiction, William Safire deftly explains and exposes the politics of the early 19th century with the true story of James Callender, pampheleteer and scandalmonger. Hired by Thomas Jefferson to help defeat the Federalists in the next election, Jefferson finds himself the target of Callender’s sharp barbs when he distances himself from the writer once he has won election.
From the scandals of Hamilton, including the charges of financial misdealings and the Mrs. Reynolds affair to exposing Jefferson’s relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, Scandalmongers is as exciting to read today as it was for those reading the pamphlets of yesteryear. I was impressed with Safire’s extensive research and use of letters to recreate real conversations. Where he creates fiction for the purpose of story development, he is forthcoming with his readers in the notes in the back of the book.
May 10, 2010
15 or 20 years ago, my mom recommended "Freedom" by William Safire. A historical novel based on the Civil War. It was a great book, so I was delighted to stumple upon his "Scandalmongers"(it was written in 2000). Safire takes historical fact and weaves in a little bit of fiction. The book follows with an 'underbook' that references what he writes that is real, and what is fiction. This book is set during George Washington's time and starts with a scandal concerning Alexander Hamilton. The newspaper writer who publishes the scandal and the years through Adam's and Jefferson's presidencies is a fascinating look at our founding fathers. Not at all the usual fluff about the 'great men'. This book tells the dark side (and it was very dark) of early politics. I found it a very hard book to get 'into'. However, once I was about 1/3 of the way through, it kept getting more and more interesting. If you're a political junkie, this is a 'must read'.
June 7, 2022
One of the best historical docudramas based on real people and real events. Unlink most other "based on a true story" narratives, William Safire includes a 44-page appendix that he titled "The Underbook" with all his sources & notes. He not only cites the sources for specific quotes and historical facts but details where he took creative liberties. As Safire eloquently states: "Here is where this novelist levels with the reader about what parts he has imagined, and where I cite sources for specific quotes and add facts to back up judgments about characters and events." I only wish all period pieces (fiction and alleged non-fiction) were this transparent. Saffire even has a six-page bibliography for his Underbook! This book accomplishes what dramatic historical fiction aims to achieve - humanizing well-known historical figures - without dramatically altering characters by interpreting what their unstated motivations were with undocumented internal dialogue.
December 4, 2014
A fascinating, shocking, delightful mostly-true tale of the years of the Adams and Jefferson presidencies. It follows the adulterous scandal that barred Hamilton from the presidency, the numerous sexual scandals that nearly cost Jefferson his re-election, the tensions with France and England, and how a saucy and fearless journalist named Callender brought it all about. Everyone who ever thought American history was boring should read this book, and everyone who ever thought American history was interesting should read it twice. The end notes are detailed and tell you a lot about what really happened and it’s fascinating that so much of the dialogue was taken from letters—it really gives you a feel for what the country was like at the time (and how little people have really changed).
Cannot recommend enough.
Cannot recommend enough.
October 12, 2012
Real historical people mix with a few fictional characters in this novel about political intrigue in the first years of our nation. The central figure is James Callender, who supported the Republicans and then the Federalists, making the switch largely for perceived affronts from Thomas Jefferson. This is fun to read, with much of it based on actual events. Safire makes a reasonable attempt to capture late 18th and early 19th century modes of thought and speech, with a lot of his dialogue copied from letters written by the persons involved. Sometimes he inevitably slips into 20th-century journalistic style, but not so much as to be terribly distracting. He invents several new relationships for Maria Reynolds, who may well have been involved with Alexander Hamilton. Aaron Burr, Jefferson, James Monroe, and James Madison are also central figures.
October 7, 2007
A fantastic historical novel about the mixture of agenda journalism and politics that fed the enmmity between Alexander Hamilton and his bitter rival, Thomas Jefferson. The scandalmonger is journalist James Callender, who published dirt on Hamilton's financial dealings. Hamilton fires back by leaking word of Jefferson's own amorous dealings with more than one woman. After reading "Scandalmonger," you'll never again think that journalistic feeding frenzies about politicians and their misdeeds -- real or accused -- are anything new. You'll also learn a lot about history in this book while having a rollicking good read!
Read
July 22, 20130/5 stars.
This book was very dull, too thick to navigate, and the language was incomprehensible. I think I met everyone and no one, all of the characters being rather complex and difficult to follow.
I think this story was ill when we met and it slipped down to death until the end, as the plot was buried under heavy layers of detail for the duration of the read, but I don't feel it was a very educational sort of journey. Still, it revealed the troubled times in our country's early days: creating boundaries for politicians and the press, suppressing the greedy and power-hungry, and protecting rights
This book was very dull, too thick to navigate, and the language was incomprehensible. I think I met everyone and no one, all of the characters being rather complex and difficult to follow.
I think this story was ill when we met and it slipped down to death until the end, as the plot was buried under heavy layers of detail for the duration of the read, but I don't feel it was a very educational sort of journey. Still, it revealed the troubled times in our country's early days: creating boundaries for politicians and the press, suppressing the greedy and power-hungry, and protecting rights
March 3, 2008
This book was quite excellent in some places and good in others. It was a good piece of historical fiction. It was so good in that regard, that it is a good thing that the author makes pains in the end to explain what was historical and what was fiction.
I do think the author played the part of a scandalmonger a bit himself here. Perhaps it is my own bias, but considering some of the things that were fiction, it seemed that he wanted to make clear which scandals of the founding fathers he felt were more and which were less scurrilous.
I do think the author played the part of a scandalmonger a bit himself here. Perhaps it is my own bias, but considering some of the things that were fiction, it seemed that he wanted to make clear which scandals of the founding fathers he felt were more and which were less scurrilous.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews