Allen DruryReseñas

Here I was reading about politics, forming a schema of what government, the senate process, and I don't know what all else. My worldview is probably still affected by what I read here.

There are good parts of this book--it won a Pulitzer (overturning the committee, as it would 13 years later to deny Gravity's Rainbow, so, grain of salt), and some of the descriptions of pain and fatigue of the politickLing life are very evocative and telling.

Overall, though, politically it's detestable, and even if I agreed with it, its lionization of Senators Doing American Things with honor and dignity is incredibly stupid, especially considering the outcome--reasonable people disagree, but one senator, a shouting, unhinged lunatic, is without nuance and exists to be castigated by absolutely everyone, as does the mustache-twirling villain (?) of the piece. The others don't see real consequences of their actions--well, they do, and feel bad about it, which absolves them.

Overall it's a portrait of the special glory of American Politics, unironically, which is a joke considering that the President blackmails a principled Senator to death.

FOREIGN RELATIONS: This is a book about the dangers of being too soft on the Soviets, a bold and shocking position to take in 1959 (it wasn't), and the jeered strawman slogan is "I would rather crawl on my knees to Moscow than die under an atom bomb!" Which....I would? We all should? Nuclear war isn't just killing people. It's total ecological devastation of all species and their futures, and the destruction of earth. I think being reasonable with the Russians--demonic beings that crave only America's total destruction--should have been a goal of foreign relations, not a derided plea from unreasonable cowards.

Of course, the foreign relations here aren't exactly nuanced. The British ambassador--the only Brit, as the other ambassadors are the only ones of their nationality--is a distant, quippy artistocrat, the Indian ambassador is a nosy, craven appeaser, the Russian ambassador is a hostile and shitty ambassador with no pretense of diplomacy with the US.

At the end of the day, the honorable men make honorable stands. I think the Senate has one woman, one Latino (maybe) and one Hawaiian guy, from Hawaii, but otherwise it's all men, all white, all paternalistic as hell. When the handsome, too-perfect young Senator has a crisis, his wife, to whom he has been emotionally distant for like a decade, is narratively chastised for being upset by his continued failure to open up to her, rather than supporting him unequivocally as he continues to lie to her in the face of anonymous threatening agents. Women exist as wives to support husbands. They may do so intelligently and compassionately, but men are at the forefront.

Overall there are no other people of color. There is surprising sympathy for a probably-gay man whose wartime affair is revealed, but not denounced (although it's in such oblique language it's a little "too awful to mention), although he isn't happy about the consequences.

It strikes me that the hero of the final stretch of the book--a tart, straight-talking Illinois senator who is the President's old rival--denounces the current state of America. You know, the golden age we're supposed to hearken back to?

Do you want a war, Senator?” Of course he didn’t want a war; he just wanted an end to this flabby damned mushy nothingness that his country had turned herself into. And he particularly wanted an end to the sort of flabby damned thinking that the nominee and his kind represented—the kind of thinking, growing out of the secret inner knowledge that a given plan of action is of course completely empty and completely futile, which forces those who embark upon it to tell themselves brightly that maybe if the enemy will just be reasonable the world will become paradise overnight and everything will be hunky-dory. It was quite obvious to Senator Knox that the enemy would never be reasonable until the day he could dictate the terms of American surrender, and it was with an almost desperate determination that he returned again and again to the task of trying to make this clear to his countrymen. It was doubly frustrating because it was quite obvious that his countrymen knew it. They knew it, but they didn’t want to admit they knew it, because that would impose upon them the obligation of doing something about it, and that might bother them, and they didn’t want that."

COME ON.

Re-reading Advise and Consent(and watching the 1962 Otto Preminger movie by the same name), after a span of several years, I am reminded of my original reading and seeing the film version in the late 1960s. Drury followed up this first novel with a handful of sequels and over a dozen other books, but none of them came close to the popularity of the 1959 hit — ninety-three weeks on the best-seller list, a play, a movie and a Pulitzer (the Pulitzer Board overriding their committee’s recommendation of Saul Bellow’s Henderson the Rain King). In many ways, Advise and Consent would be a fine reading in Cold War history courses or in courses that seek to explain the nature of Cold War politics. As an insight, though, into the nature of the appointments process as currently practiced, it remains locked in its time.
The novel tells the story of the nomination of peace-loving diplomat Robert A. Leffingwell to be Secretary of State. Unfolding in “books” from four senators, the story proceeds quickly and in rich, complex detail, aided no doubt by Drury’s intimate knowledge of how the Senate worked based on his experiences as a Washington political reporter. The first edition of Advise and Consent numbered 616 pages and the level of exegesis and dialogue is deep and broad. All layers of the advice and consent process are covered—from gripping hearing testimony to vitriolic floor debates, from the machinations of the White House to the cloakroom deals in the Senate.
Not only does Advise and Consent access the political dynamics of the Senate’s advice and consent to presidential nominations, the novel also delves deeply into the personal stories of the characters who must manage and judge this process. One widowed senator, the majority leader, is intimately involved with a Washington socialite and there is the past of the nominee, who flirted with communism while teaching in Chicago and is forced to confront this aspect of his personal history to secure confirmation. Another senator, a married Mormon from Utah, is blackmailed by a colleague who has discovered the senator’s intimate, sexual relationship with another man while in the army during World War II.

The narrative depth and the richness of the story’s details make it a fascinating read. It provides a panoramic view of Cold War Washington. It is a story that brings together strands of different actual events and real characters to create a composite vision of the U.S. Senate and its workings in the area of advice and consent. The novel was followed by Drury's A Shade of Difference in 1962 and four additional sequels. While Drury's Advise and Consent is arguably the best of its kind (and may have defined the genre) I have enjoyed others like O'Connor's The Last Hurrah and, more recently, Primary Colors.

My first novel by Drury I read in High School from the Huba.Library. Needless to say, not my last.

A well-researched, capably written. Not a page-turner to provide the reader with a clear understanding of the magnitude of his goal of shifting society's Amon-centric culture & religion to a singular monotheistic cult of the Aten.

This is the 1960 Pulitzer award winning book and I read this while in Florida because it was available here in the library. This book is over 600 pages and it took be a long time to engage with the story but then I did and the last couple sections went by much faster. The fact that this book was published in 1959 during the cold war following WWII made the book even more significant to me. The story is about the process of approving a presidential recommendation for Secretary of State by the Senate. The president's candidate is smooth and avoids responding to any question with anything at all that can inform anyone of what he represents or how he will conduct himself. In the course, something is found, and what is found is significant in that it shows that the man has not been honest, that he has willfully lied during his hearings. The knowledge leads to a crisis for one man who is unable to survive the process and other senators who also played a part of in the destruction of their own colleague. The president is unhealthy and there is suspicions of his health, the vice president is painted as weak. The president is also culpable in the event that occurs because he put his desires before treating people decently and respectfully. The Russians are antagonistic and in this book, they are the first country to land on the moon. Interesting in that no one has yet landed on the moon when this book was written. The final chapters of the book had me nearly in tears, it was such a good, good ending. I come away from the book with a better understanding of political process and a renewed desire to know more in spite of the dirty, horrible political climate that is currently apart of normal operations. I do feel that the book was too long, that the author could have shortened it up a bit without losing any of the important parts of the story but I am so glad that I read it.

Historical novel of Akhenaten.

I had a hard time getting into this. I'm just not that interested in politics. Some parts are dated. But I don't think politics has changed much.

Amonhtep seeks to lessen Amon and his priest power and pays a high price. His son Ankenaten grow to hate Amon and love Aton. In the book Akhenaten starts out as a handsome child, then becomes the disfigured man of his portraits. As he grows and changes he becomes more and more strange. He also becomes obsessed with the Aton. The book ends shortly after he becomes the sole Pharaoh, when he has declared Aton the sole god of Egypt and moved his city.

I knew the Pharaohs married their sisters, but in this book they also marry their daughters. Somehow that idea really disturbed me.

The inside flap to Advise and Consent states it is "...a story so sweeping and complex in its conception that each segment alone would make an enthralling book." Right. I'm sure that's why the entire story is over 600 pages long. Drury has crafted five segments: Bob Munson's book, Seab Cooley's book, Brigham Anderson's book, Orrin Knox's book and Advise and Consent.
Advise and Consent opens with the announcement of the President of the United State's controversial appointment of Bob Leffingwell as Secretary of State. Right away Drury's language is witty and mischievous as if there is a twinkle in the eye of the storyteller. If you have ever watched "House of Cards" then you know how deviously politics can be played out. Advise and Consent is no different.

This is one of the most memorable books on politics I have ever read. I read it as a kid sometime in the 1960s and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Advise and Consent is a 1959 political novel by Allen Drury that explores the United States Senate confirmation of controversial Secretary of State nominee Robert Leffingwell, who is a former member of the Communist Party. The novel spent 102 weeks on The New York Times Best Seller list, won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1960 and was adapted into a successful 1962 film starring Henry Fonda. It was followed by Drury's A Shade of Difference in 1962, and four additional sequels.

Actually a pretty decent read. The tale of a controversial nominee for Secretary of State is quite timeless, as are the political infighting and behind the scenes machinations.

A well researched book but not nearly as well written as the classic "The Egyptian" nor as entertaining as some of the non-fiction books that cover this era. The first book "Birth of a God" is a very slow read and very confusing. It took me until the end of that book (or chapter) to realize that each chapter title would tell me the POV of that section.½

This is Drury's 1966 follow-up to his Pulitzer Prize winning novel, Advise and Consent. The first was an in-depth look at the workings of the Senate and the presidency. Drury's right-wing politics poked through a little, but mostly he concentrated on the story line and characters, and the book was (and I think still is) well worth reading. But in this sequel, which follows many of the same characters as the first, Drury's political views get full play, to the detriment of the book. I don't say this just because I disagree with those politics, but because Drury's outlook is so weighted. Basically, all liberals are wrong-headed; they are gullible, deluded and/or phonies.

The action moves mostly from Washington down to New York City, to take us inside the workings of the U.N. and a cynical attack on American prestige and cultural values is underway. Oh, and by the way, anybody who, in 1966, was impatient about the rate of improvement of civil rights for blacks was just unrealistic and probably anti-American. The NAACP, for example, is recast in the book as DEFY.

The storytelling was still decent, but barely allowed to breath for the heavy-handed political message. Drury wrote six books in this series all told. After reading Advise and Consent, I'd intended to read the whole bunch, but my mind's been changed about that, boy howdy.½

A novel of its time; the ruler of the African nation of Gorotoland uses American racial inequality to push for full independence from England, using the United Nations as a forum. Of course the ruler is evil and underhanded, whereas the SC Senator who is unabashedly racist and conservative is presented in 'good man behind the times' light. Engaging, and helped develop the 'politics in Washington' genre.½

Interesting subject, but the cast of characters is too large and it moves rather slowly.

Recommended for Hill staffers and fans of the West Wing/House of Cards.½

758. A Shade of Difference A Novel by Allen Drury (read 15 Dec 1963) This book is about the United Nations, the author indicating his familiarity in regard to the workings thereof. It probably is not too revelatory of the present UN since there are now 191 or so nations in the organization, whereas in the 1960s there were far fewer. But I confess I do not remember this book, even though I remember with much appreciation Drury's Advise and Consent, which was the best book I read in 1960. Since this book, A Shade of Difference, was read by me in 1963 does that indicate it was not as memorable a book as Advise and Consent? Probably, although who knows how much the fact I saw the movie based on Advise and Consent may have to do with my memory of it?½

620. Advise and Consent, by Allen Drury (read 9 June 1960) (Book of the Year) (Pulitzer Fiction prize for 1960) Each year since 1944 I have picked a book of the year--the book deemed by me at the end of the year as the best book I read that year. This book was the best book I read in 1960, a year in which I read 33 books--5 fiction and 28 non-fiction. This book was fiction, but I really ate it up because it was about political matters and politics has been a prime interest of mine since I was 8 years old.

779. A Senate Journal 1943-1945, by Allen Drury (read 18 Sep 1964) I have long had a fascinated interest in the U.S. Senate, and this book told of things going on there in the years from 1943 to 1945. Those years were years I was particularly interested in the Senate, perused the Congressional Record whenever I could, and collected pictures of Senators. (I also in those days collected candy bar wrappers.)

It took me a long time to get through this book due to all sorts of ongoing events in my day-to-day life, but it was well worth sticking with this 760-page fascinating novel about the U.S. Senate. The book centers around a controversial presiodential nomination for a new Secretary of State. The question is, does this man have the stuff to stand up to the Russians during the height of the cold war. The book delves into the pasts and personalities of several key senators and in the process shows the workings of the Senate during such a procedure. Of course reading this story set in 1959, one wonders how much the standards of etiquette, courtesy and mutual respect are still observed in today's fractious political times. At any rate, the story here flows very, very well indeed. The book is compelling and the plot believable. Nobody is all good or all bad. This book won a Pulitzer Prize and one can well see why. The only drawback might be that the characters are drawn with just a touch of cliche sometimes, and are not quite as deeply realized as I think Drury was hoping for. Plus at times the book gets a bit preachy. But that's why I give this book 4 1/2 stars rather than the full five. Advise and Consent is a time commitment and something of a time capsule. I do recommend it highly for anyone who thinks a novel about the American political system, even in 1959, might be interesting.½

מותחן פוליטי גדול שמתאר בפרטי פרטים את תהליכי המאבקים בסנט על מינוי שר חוץ נתון לויכוח. בסט סלר אמריקני במיטבו

ספר מתח ודרמה פוליטיים מרתק ומאלף

The author comes off as an apologist for apartheid. He is critical of the Nationalist regime over dispensing with habeus corpus, however he is not critical of the basic idea of apartheid. I'll take into account that his book was written after the Belgian crisis and before the successes of the American civil rights era. Even with this taken into account, I would expect better of an American journalist.
His incessant use of newspaper articles is repetitive and after the first dozen adds nothing. I have to admit that I was unable to finish this book.

Somewhat aged, but still good to read, especially for a Washingtonian

Without a doubt, the worst book that I read in 2010 was Allen Drury's Advise and Consent (1959); how this thing won a Pulitzer for Best Fiction is beyond me.

Advise and Consent is a door-stopper of a "novel" (760 pages in the mass market paperback edition that I read) that is concerned with the U.S. Senate's role to advise the President on and give consent to his cabinet appointments; the main plot involves the tortuous process of confirming a highly divisive figure, Robert A. Leffingwell, as Secretary of State, while the main subplot involves shocking revelations of the past of the young senior senator from Utah, Brigham Anderson.

While I mostly enjoyed the 1962 Otto Preminger movie (in which Henry Fonda played Leffingwell and Don Murray played Anderson; it also starred Walter Pidgeon, Charles Laughton, Franchot Tone, Lew Ayres and Gene Tierney), which was based on the play that was based on the book, despite some reservations that mostly arise from the time in which it was made, the book -- the book! -- is a windy, prolix, flat, dull, singularly unconvincing bloviation on the glories of the U.S.Senate that is occasionally enlivened by scenes of interest (chiefly some of the political skulduggery, but also how the President is so abrasive, manipulative and double-dealing that he manages to alienate a substantial number of the senators from his own party). No one's political party is ever identified, and the President is never named -- he remains simply "The President" throughout the entire book -- but one can make educated guesses as to the major characters' party affiliation. (Given the time in which it was written and set, the party in majority is doubtless the Republican Party, while the opposition party, led by a wily Southern cliché named Seab [pronounced "Seb"; it's short for "Seabright"] Cooley, played by Charles Laughton in the film, is the Democratic Party, still strong in the South.)

Drury was a former journalist, and one can see how he must've felt as though he was on a busman's holiday, albeit free of the strict limitations to his word count, with Advise and Consent; for the novel to remain readable, however, an editor should've taken him firmly in hand and slashed his manuscript by at least a couple hundred pages. The character development is notable by its absence, the female characters are nearly non-existent and offensive to a modern reader when present, the ethnic stereotypes are so close to racist tropes that there's not a hair's difference between them, and Drury's abuse of the adverb nearly converted me to Graham Greene's abhorrence for same. That the conclusion is so obviously meant to be uplifting is farcical, utterly risible. In short, The West Wing it ain't.

Wikipedia's entry for Advise and Consent reports: "The story is loosely based on the Hiss-Chambers and David Lilienthal controversies, and, according to comments by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher, on the Leland Olds nomination battle;" Drury also threw in a minor, though significant, character to stand in for Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, although, in the best Red-baiting fashion (Drury was a rabid anti-Communist who favored military confrontation of the Soviet Union), he makes this character's weltanschauung the polar opposite of McCarthy's. (SPOILER ALERT: don't jump to Wikipedia's article if you want the story elements of Advise and Consent to remain a surprise, as it starts making with the spoilers in the very next paragraph.)

Drury published five, count 'em, five sequels to Advise and Consent (two of which -- Come Nineveh, Come Tyre [1973] and The Promise of Joy [1975] -- are alternate endings: two different outcomes spun off from the ambiguous cliffhanger of 1968's Preserve and Protect); I'm happy to report that, contrary to my usual book hoarding practice, I own none of them, and I plan to read none of them. (I do, however, own a copy of Drury's novel about Akhenaten, A God Against the Gods (1976), which I bought before I bought Advise and Consent; it's gonna be a looooong while before I pick that one up, I'm afraid.)