Book Review: John and Paul: A Love Story in Songs by Ian Leslie

The Lennon-McCartney partnership remains the most intangible aspect of The Beatles. Ian Leslie's study of their deeply intense relationship and the creative explosion they unleashed on the 20th Century attempts to uncover the secret alchemy they shared. While many biographies have been written on Lennon and McCartney, few have focused solely on them alone. As Leslie observes our culture struggles with making sense of close emotional connections between men so for nothing else the book is a deep dive into their music and conflicting personalities. 

Leslie takes a chronological approach starting with then they met as teenagers and forged a close friendship, learning guitar and writing songs together. Their collaboration was unconventional in terms of songwriting because they both write lyrics and composed music. They would bring their songs to each other and revise them. For example on "She Loves You" they switched the lyrics from first to third person, adding further dimension to what was a standard pop tune. In the early days they were simpatico, both bringing the best out of the other. As the Beatles hit the highest reaches of fame imaginable, their friendship became more complex and competitive - until it exploded. 

Now a half century since the Beatles ended, we're still captivated by the music, but even more so by the mysteries surrounding the band despite the volumes written about them. Leslie sheds some light on the Lennon/McCartney songwriting process, often reading their songs as an ongoing dialogue between them. Yet one wonders if any definite answers are too elusive. 

Beatles fans love to debate everything, but especially which side of Lennon/McCartney carried more weight. Of course, John will always be the cooler answer for obvious reasons. Lennon mobilized his dry wit to challenge power structures and in his most inspired moments spoke eloquently of peace and an enlightened humanity. He was the pure artist who pushed the Beatles forward.

Then there's Paul who just made it all look so damn easy with his good looks and happy go lucky persona. Paul willed songs out of thin air, as we saw in the Get Back documentary. He could write a song about anything, whether it be comic book characters, hack writers, even a love song for his dog! Lennon had no time for such material. Or so the mythology goes. 

By 1965, John and Paul were living separate lives. When not touring or recording, John mostly lingered at his country estate outside of London, while Paul lived a Bohemian life in the city, keeping up with the latest in technology and staying keyed to the music scene. His output began to outpace John's, as power dynamics in the band started to shift. The release of "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane" in late 1966 for Leslie marked the apogee of their partnership. 

As the Beatles entered their late phase in 1968-69, John and Paul were going in different directions personally and artistically. The more they drifted apart, the more passionately they tried to keep the band going. Leslie reads Paul's "Hey Jude" and "Oh Darling!" as being directed at John. John was more direct about his feelings for Paul on songs like "Glass Onion" and "Don't Let Me Down." Throughout the '70s they frequently exchanged barbs, John often being more direct, his acidic "How do you Sleep?" being the most egregious example. 

They only saw each other a handful of times after the breakup. John lived an erratic life post-Beatles. He got involved in activism, fell in and out of his marriage with Yoko, and followed Paul's career closely. Paul had formed Wings, which had amassed a string of hits by decade's end. Leslie portrays John as jealous of his bandmate's success and still holding on to petty grievances. They would speak on the phone, but sometimes those calls turned into bitter arguments. When a deranged fan killed John outside his apartment the world lost something that it's never quite recovered from.

The book begins with the scene outside Paul's studio when he briefly addressed the media the day John was killed, his flippant answers and annoyed tone struck many as cold. In hindsight it's one of the most heartbreaking moments ever caught on camera. The two of them had lived many lifetimes together and it all ended that day. Leslie poses the right questions and offers much grounded analysis, but the magic remains in the music. 

Book Review: The Hot Zone: The Terrifying True Story of the Origins of the Ebola Virus by Richard Preston

The Hot Zone was a major bestseller in 1994, a non-fiction potboiler about an Ebola outbreak that occurred in late 1989 outside of Washington D.C. Richard Preston's writing is pop science at its best, engaging in the science of virology combined with a knack for narrative and structure (based on his New Yorker articles). Preston spares no gory detail on what Ebola does to the human body, such as liquifying human organs. It's also a book about how institutions respond to a potentially devastating crisis and how quickly things can go south. A natural follow-up to Michael Crichton's classic "bio-thriller" The Andromeda Strain, The Hot Zone also takes on a new resonance in the post-Covid era.

Preston begins and ends the books at Kitum Cave in Kenya, the spot where the Marburg and Ebola viruses possibly originated, a beautiful and terrifying place. Written in the context of when the virus that causes AIDS was discovered to have come from monkeys, Ebola had similar origins. The earliest cases of Ebola occurred in the late 1970s in Congo and Sudan, but they were contained. Meanwhile, the spread of AIDS commanded the attention of the West. 

By the 1980s the U.S. Government had their own samples of Ebola and were studying the virus, using monkeys as test subjects. The book follows scientists who worked with viruses on a daily basis in "spacesuits" trying to unlock their secrets. In late 1989, a facility that housed test monkeys saw many become sick. It spread like wildfire through the facility, and many of the workers had been in close contact with the monkeys. If the virus had become airborne, the world might be facing an emergency. 

Without revealing too much, there was obviously no major Ebola outbreak in 1989, a virus with a 90% kill rate. The actual story of the containment is not without drama, raising as many questions as answers. There were turf wars between the Army and CDC, and a serious effort to block out the media to avoid mass panic. The scientists and the military acted with good sense, even bravery at times, from preventing the unthinkable. But as the book illustrates, these situations move quickly and can quickly spiral out of control.

Preston observes at the end:

In a sense, the earth is mounting an immune response against the human species. It is beginning to react to the human parasite, the flooding infection of people, the dead spots of concrete all over the planet, the cancerous rot-outs in Europe, Japan, and the United States, thick with replicating primates, the colonies enlarging and spreading and threatening to shock the biosphere with mass extinctions. Perhaps the biosphere does not "like" the idea of five billion humans. . . The earth's immune system, so to speak, has recognized the presence of the human species and is starting to kick in. (406-407)

There's something Lovecraftian about the idea of ancient particles waiting to be unearthed that will bring a horrifying end to humanity, a final reckoning making a mockery of humanity's own hubris. While the Covid pandemic never became an extinction level event, it did provide intelligence on the state of the species. We remain distrustful and irrational but also creative and adaptable to unexpected challenges. We've barely begun to process the long-term effects of the pandemic. Perhaps the viruses are superior to us because they are free of politics, their sole purpose is survival and they've proven quite adept at it when compared to the newcomer primates. 

In 2025, The Hot Zone would be derided in some quarters as deep state propaganda, especially since there's a total crackpot in charge of Health and Human Services who believes letting Bird Flu spread is the best solution, while slashing staff at the CDC. At its heart the book is a tribute to the personnel putting their lives on the line to prevent the spread of disease. At its best, the book is a nostalgic look back at the 1990s when science had yet to become so polarizing. 

There was a bidding war for the movie rights even before the book was published, the film was to be directed by Ridley Scott, with A-list stars Robert Redford and Jodie Foster, but the project collapsed. In 2019, the National Geographic TV network aired a mini-series based on the book to mixed reviews. 

Book Review: Fascism: A Warning by Madeleine Albright

Fascism: A Warning by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright provides a history of fascism and explains its recent resurgence for a popular audience. Written in response to the early Trump administration, Albright combines political memoir with historical analysis, drawing connections to current events and government actions that should raise concern. The book's main purpose is educational, directed towards readers who did not live through the 20th Century. 

Albright defines a Fascist as:

someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary - including violence -to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist. (11)

During the rise and eventual election of Trump in 2016, pundits and the political class were reluctant to use the F-word towards MAGA and acted like it was "normal populism." Albright deserves credit for writing honestly about Trump when few from the establishment were willing to say so. Albright also places MAGA within the context of global politics, comparing America with Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. A chapter on the rise of Vladimir Putin places the Russian leader as the setting the template for modern authoritarianism. 

The early chapters focus on the rise of fascism in the 1930s recounting the rise of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco, focusing on the methods they used to attain power. There are many definitions of fascism from a theoretical perspective, but the signatures remain the same: nationalistic, subservient to a charismatic leader, demonizing minorities for a country's ills, militaristic in rhetoric and foreign policy, and silencing all critics through intimidation. Many scholars have argued Fascism arose in the 20th Century due to industrialism and democracy's failure to adapt. Just as in the 21st Century, democracies have struggled with adjusting to technology and the post-industrial world, leaving many behind who are angry and open to accepting a dictator. 

The book is most effective when explaining how 21st Century authoritarians have turned to more subtle tactics. They utilize social media to provide their followers with their own truths, outflanking legacy media outlets and demonizing experts. All faith is placed in the leader. Trump's ability to build a coalition of Christian nationalists, Tech Bros, and traditional conservatives mocked all the conventional wisdom of the pundit class. 

Albright passed away in 2022, so she did not live to see the reelection of Trump. The political establishment has failed to deal with him, they've been outflanked at every turn. Biden's antiquated brand of post-war liberalism failed to break the MAGA fever. Neither does Albright acknowledge the mixed legacy of the foreign policy establishment or take some responsibility for the conditions that led to Trump. 

Warnings from denizens of American politics are useful from an educational perspective, but it will take new methods to defeat the new fascism. I'm susceptible to WWII nostalgia like anyone else, the democracies managed to build the alliances to preserve their ideals, but those were strategies of a different time. For democracy to survive it will require courage and creativity - if it's not already too late. 

Book Review: Commander and Chief: FDR's Battle With Churchill, 1943 by Nigel Hamilton

Commander in Chief is the second volume of Nigel Hamilton's study of FDR as a grand strategist, the first volume The Mantle of Command focused on the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and the key decisions made by the Allies in 1942, specifically FDR's determination to open a second front in North Africa which led to a confrontation with his generals. As the title suggests, the middle volume takes a close look at FDR and Churchill's clash over war strategy through 1943, specifically whether the Allies were best served by focusing on the Mediterranean front with the eventual goal of overtaking Germany from the south or by opening a front in Western Europe through a cross-channel invasion. Churchill favored the former, while FDR advocated for the latter. 

Hamilton's objective with the trilogy was to compile a narrative of events from FDR's perspective. Much of the discourse around the grand strategy of the war was shaped by Churchill's own six-volume history, which remains invaluable, but must also be recognized as biased and self-serving. From FDR's mindset, recognizing the immediate threat posed by Hitler, while at the same time realizing Stalin was also a monster but an essential ally if the Third Reich would ever be defeated. He worried about the USSR and Germany reaching an armistice that would split the alliance and forever decide the fate of Europe.

But the immediate concern was Churchill's insistence on taking the fight to Hitler through Italy, an idea supported by many in FDR's inner circle. The argument for the Mediterranean strategy was that a cross-channel invasion of France was too risky, Hitler's Atlantic wall would decimate any attempt to land a major invading force. History was on Churchill's side since there had not been a successful cross-channel invasion since 1066. The Dieppe raid in August of 1942 was a small-scale attempt at an amphibious invasion of France by the Allies that ended in disaster. Churchill argued for hitting weak points across Southern Europe to weaken Germany with far less casualties and eventually more leverage in shaping the fate of Europe before the Soviets swept across the entire continent.  

FDR saw it differently and had to play a complicated game of keeping the alliance together while never losing sight of the main goal. He was wise enough to realize preparations for a cross-channel invasion would take time. Many of his generals had favored an attempt in 1942, and many pushed for 1943. From FDR's perspective the situation was far more complex. His military advisors felt landings in North Africa served little purpose in defeating the Axis powers, but FDR saw the importance of engaging German armies to gain experience that would prove pivotal when the time was right for D-Day. Similarly, the July 1943 invasion of Sicily provided experience with amphibious operations. By mid-1943, FDR decided the time for peripheral strategies was over and the invasion of France must move forward the next spring to bring a swift end to the conflict. 

The imperative to ease pressure on the Soviets by forcing Germany to fight on two European fronts cannot be overstated. Churchill fantasized about moving into Italy as a launching point of securing the Balkans. But these "pinprick" operations on the periphery were a way of avoiding the difficult task of defeating the Germans where they were strongest. With the Allied war aim of unconditional surrender, the end could only come with total capitulation, best achieved by landings in France. Churchill also underestimated how fiercely the German army would resist, the Wehrmacht did not collapse after the landings in Italy, and it took the Allies months to secure Rome. By the end of summer 1943, FDR's plan for a cross-channel invasion prevailed, it was the riskiest but surest way to end the war.

Hamilton also lets the reader see things from the German perspective in 1943, although the Soviet invasion had stalled and they had retreated in North Africa, Hitler and the top leadership believed they could drive a wedge into the alliance; confident their domination of Europe was permanent. They welcomed more attacks on the periphery of Europe since they had shorter supply lines and less to lose, and were also confident a cross-channel invasion by the Allies would meet with swift defeat. With fantasies of super weapons and a belief in their national fate, the German leadership in 1943 still saw many paths to victory (or stalemate) despite the recent setbacks. 

Even during the war's darkest moments FDR was planning for the post-war world. He envisioned the United Nations and the end of colonialism (another sore spot with Churchill), creating the structures that would lead to a long peace. If Churchill was the ultimate frenemy, Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King was a close confidante who kept records of his meetings with FDR. I can't imagine what FDR would think of an American President antagonizing Canada (apologies for the contemporary reference.) He also had a gift for recognizing talent, he supported Eisenhower even through his shaky performance during Operation Torch. 

While hundreds of studies have been written on the Second World War, Commander and Chief is a clear-eyed view of 1943 and the challenges facing the Allied leadership. Hamilton's sense of narrative is dramatic, and he avoids pushing personal agendas or engaging in armchair generalship. He sticks to the facts and presents readers with the complexities facing leaders at the highest levels during a pivotal moment of world history.