Dave:  And that was largely how we felt going into the book.

Nate:  Precisely. I knew some basic facts about Garfield, such as he was the 20^th president, he was from Ohio, he was a Civil War general, and he was assassinated. But other than that, I didn’t know a whole lot, and this is coming from someone who loves and studies history. What I found out was that he had the potential to be an outstanding president if he had lived, which is contrary to what you usually think when it comes to presidents in the late 19^th century. So that was very interesting to me.

Dave:  He was just such a nice guy – even as his doctors were killing him he was telling them thank you, and how much he appreciated their care. And in many ways he was the quintessential American myth of a President. He was born in a log cabin, was self educated, made his way through college, became president of that college, became a general in the Civil War, made his way into politics, and was thought of highly enough to be nominated for President. And most of his rise had to do with the fact that he was just an all around good and decent man. Probably one of the more decent human beings we’ve ever had as a President. And that was in the middle of a whole lot of corruption.

Nate:  Yeah, this was in the middle of one of the most corrupt times, politically, in the history of our country. But up until his death, Garfield had stood up to those forces. And I’m led to believe he would have maintained that stance if he had lived.

Dave:  He was also a friend of the south, which was contrary to the way most Republicans of the day operated. There was a definite trust there, which makes you wonder if things might have progressed differently in terms of the ongoing effects of Reconstruction and racial division. How much would the south have listened to him and tried to work with him?

Nate:  It’s an interesting question, and one we’ll never know because unfortunately he only held office for a few months. And most of that time he was lying in bed, sick and dying from a gunshot wound. Or I guess it would be more accurate to say from his doctors’ care.

Dave:  Which is the other piece that makes this book so interesting. All of this was going on at the same time as some fairly big scientific advancements. There’s the side story of Alexander Graham Bell and how he tries to help save Garfield by trying to find a way to detect where the bullet was in his body. But some of the biggest changes were occurring in the field of medicine, which is where science collided with the President’s struggle for life. The saddest part of the story is that the gunshot wound Garfield received from his would-be assassin is not what actually killed him. It was all the meddling with and probing of his wound by scores of doctors who did not believe in using sterilized instruments that led to his death. Infection is what killed him, not a bullet.

Nate:  It was so interesting in the book when Millard said that if Garfield had just been some drunk in a bar who got into a fight and had been shot in the same spot, he would have probably been taken to a hospital where nothing drastic would have been done, the bullet would have stayed where it was, and the wound would have eventually healed. It was wedged in a part of his body where there was a large amount of muscle and fat, and could really do no harm to him.

Dave:  But unfortunately, because Garfield was the President, he had about twenty doctors hovering over him from the moment he was shot, trying their best to figure out where the bullet was, and how to get it out. And the doctor who was in charge of his care, Dr. Bliss, whose first name was actually Doctor oddly enough, certainly led the way when it came to wound tampering. He even went so far as to stick his fingers and hand into Garfield’s bullet wound. All of this probing and tampering caused a massive infection, which is eventually what killed him.

Nate:  And what’s really sad is that the understanding of bacteria and sterilized instruments did exist. But unfortunately American doctors didn’t adhere to this practice yet. So if he had been shot 10-20 years later he probably would have lived.

Dave:  And then there’s the story of Charles Guiteau, the man who shot Garfield.

Nate:  Guiteau was something else. He definitely belonged in an institution for the insane. His family even tried to get him committed several times, but to no avail. His path is followed leading up to the assassination, and you learn just how “out there” he really was.

Dave:  He was at the White House virtually every day wanting to talk to Garfield because he was certain he was going to appoint him as the Ambassador to France. In fact, he was there so much that the staff and members of Garfield’s cabinet knew who he was. In the end, when he had been rejected by the administration, Guiteau felt he had been chosen by God to kill Garfield and that the nation would praise his name when he did. Even when he was in jail, he was convinced that General Sherman was going to come and free him. It was really a sad and pitiful story about a guy who had no idea how to function in society.

Nate:  And how about Abraham Lincoln’s son, Robert Todd Lincoln. You find out that he was in the direct vicinity of three Presidential assassination – his father, Garfield, and also William McKinley two decades later.

Dave:  And he was also in the crowd of dignitaries when there was an assassination attempt on Teddy Roosevelt.

Nate:  So I guess the lesson to be learned from that was to not have Robert Todd Lincoln anywhere near you if you were the President.

Dave:  Who do you think would enjoy this book?

Nate:  This is an interesting question, because initially I didn’t want to read it. When I first saw it, it didn’t really pique my interest because I honestly had no desire to read what I thought was more or less a biography of Garfield, who I couldn’t have cared less about.

Dave:  Yes, as we said before, James Garfield isn’t exactly a household name.

Nate:  Right. But after several people I knew read it, and told me how good it was, I decided it might be worth picking up.  And I’m certainly glad I did. And I will say that some of the people I know who read it and thoroughly enjoyed it are not people who read a lot of historical non-fiction.

Dave:  There are a couple of elements to the book – there is the biographical part, where you learn about Garfield, Guiteau, and even Alexander Graham Bell, but there’s also the scientific element to it where you learn about the medicine and science of the day. And I don’t know how anyone could not be drawn into the story of James Garfield. He’s portrayed as a truly amazing person, and I think most anyone would like him as they go through the book, as well as his wife, Lucretia who was also an amazing woman. And in addition to all of that, it’s also well written by Candice Millard, who used to write for the Kansas City Star, and who also wrote another great book, “The River of Doubt”.

Nate:  So I guess what we’re saying is, don’t be scared away by the fact that it’s historical non-fiction, or by the fact that it’s about someone you might not know a lot about.

Dave:  Exactly. If you just take the time to pick it up, I think you’ll find yourself enjoying it, and you’ll really get to know, and like, James Garfield.

Nate: Especially in central Illinois in the early ‘70s.

Dave: Exactly. Small town, central Illinois at this time was still stuck in the 1950s in terms of overall worldview, so this young teacher, named Lynn Sweet, ruffled a few feathers. But it was his similarity to my high school baseball coach, in terms of looks and lifestyle that really drew me in to the story. Plus, this took me back to when I was growing up because I was about the same age as most of the kids in the book.

Nate: I just loved how much of a leader Coach Sweet was. Here was someone who had no coaching experience, although he had played some baseball when he was a kid; but with no coaching experience he makes this team a consistent winner. It shows that leadership isn’t all about X’s and O’s. He knew how to instill confidence in his team, help them relax, and make them believe they could win any game.

Dave: And the coaching establishment in the state just hated him. But his players loved him – as did the students who took his English classes. There’s probably nothing better for a young kid than to have an adult, other than your parents, have a positive influence on you.

Nate: His teaching methods were as unorthodox as his looks. It wasn’t the usual, boring English class the kids were used to having throughout their schooling. He had them write their own obituaries so they could think about what they were going to do in their lives and he had them reading controversial books.

Dave: And on the baseball field, he told them they didn’t really have to practice. The practices they had were loose and fun.  He allowed them to play “Jesus Christ Superstar” while they warmed up before games. He wanted them to think about things differently, have fun, get comfortable, and believe in themselves. Which is exactly what happened. That, despite not having much of an equipment budget.

Nate: You’ve got that right. They wore about three different styles of uniform that year, while just about everyone on the team had a different hat.

Dave: Yeah, some of the uniforms had Macon spelled out, some just had an M, and some of the kids had peace signs on their hats. It was a complete hodgepodge because there was no money for equipment. They had two bats, and one time, before a game, when they both broke, a parent had to run to the local hardware store and buy two more so they would be able to hit.

Nate: It’s hard to believe a team in this kind of a situation could make a run through the state tournament, but that’s what Macon did, beating some schools that are much bigger along the way.

Dave: They actually thought the year before was going to be their big year, but they ended up having a couple of players ruled ineligible, so they were eliminated from the playoffs. But they came back the next year and were even better, and finally earned their shot at the state tournament.

Nate: One thing I really loved about this book was that it felt real. While it certainly had a “Hoosiers” quality to it, it wasn’t just the formulaic team coming together, beating the odds, and winning a championship type of story. There was adversity faced by the team, the individual players, and the coach – and not every game turns out the way you might think. It’s a wild ride, but also one where the reality of life intervenes.

Dave: I loved some of the kids on the team. There was only one real “star” on the team who would go on to play baseball professionally. The rest were moderately talented kids who were able to put it all together as a team despite their individual shortcomings. I especially loved their left handed starting pitcher who, despite having no fastball whatsoever, could somehow get anyone out with his slow curve.  He was a kid I think anyone could really root for and relate to.

Nate: I thought the administrator who hired Lynn Sweet was pretty interesting as well.

Dave: Absolutely. He knew that the kids in the school district were sheltered from what was going on in the world, so it was his goal to bring in a variety of viewpoints to give them an idea of what was really out there. I think that was important for the kids in Macon.

Nate: And interestingly enough, none of the baseball team parents had an issue with Sweet. His ideas might have been off the beaten path, but they obviously saw what an effect he was having on their kids, and they embraced him. I think most people can relate to having a coach or a teacher who served as a role model for them when they were growing up, which is exactly what Lynn Sweet was.

Dave: Which is one reason why I would recommend this book to just about anyone. Although it focuses on the success of a baseball team, the reality is that it’s a story about how important leadership is and how important and influential one person can be on a group of kids.

Dave: Yeah, I was in college in southern Indiana while this was going on, and at the time I thought it was a lot more orderly than it really was. But then that was the message that was being conveyed by the government. And after reading the book, it seems as though the higher ups in the government thought it was a lot more orderly than it really was too, so I guess it wasn’t necessarily all fabrication on their part.

Nate: It was definitely an improvised operation that resulted from a situation that was much more dire and desperate than the government officials on the outside were aware of. I loved learning about all of the soldiers who were at the embassy – getting to know their backgrounds and how they got to where they were – and how these events in their lives brought them all together in this one place.

Dave: And the honor those soldiers had, and their commitment to their duty. Despite all of the craziness that was going on outside the walls of the embassy, and even inside the walls of the embassy, they were Marines. They didn’t lose control, they didn’t break down. They simply did their job, and were willing to do whatever it took to get that job done.

Nate: The conflict the Marines felt within themselves was also present throughout the book. Here were good soldiers who did exactly what they were told, and yet despite that, they couldn’t understand how the situation in Vietnam had gotten to where it was. The war was lost, the North Vietnamese were marching on Saigon, the embassy walls were being mobbed by people trying to get out of the country before the North Vietnamese takeover, and they just couldn’t quite understand it. They’d become disillusioned.

Dave: And this seems to be one of the overriding themes of the Vietnam War – good soldiers who do their duty, but who are still on the losing end of the war. It was a tough pill for them to swallow, and that bitterness and disappointment is visible throughout the book, as the last people are trying to get out of the country. Yet, despite their bitterness and disappointment, they were still at the embassy, doing their duty to the best of their ability, until they were all evacuated, or the last man had fallen. And that’s important to note, because the last twelve Marines who stayed behind didn’t know for sure if there was going to be a last chopper to come get them. And the one that did, arrived minutes before it was too late.

Nate: The issue of the non-American evacuees was another one the Marines had to deal with. Here were people who had been loyal to the Americans, and in the end many of those people were going to be left behind. These were people the Americans had made promises to, and now they were being abandoned.

Dave: And the Marines at the embassy were the ones who had to look them in the eye and see the disappointment, hurt, anger, and desperation many of those people had. Granted, there were a lot of non-Americans who got out during the evacuation, but there were also a lot who didn’t, and that was something those Marines had to deal with in those final hours.

Nate: The helicopter pilots who flew for 18 straight hours were remarkable as well. Not only for their endurance, but also because they had to land their choppers in an extremely tight area, many times while being fired at, and throughout the night when it was dark.

Dave: Yeah, the Marines were amazed at the skill they showed, as one small maneuvering mistake would have meant a crash. And because of how that area they landed at in the embassy was set up, they often could even hardly see the ground or their bearings very well. It was truly remarkable.

Nate: Who were some of the people who were involved that stood out to you?

Dave: Well, I thought the ambassador, Graham Martin was, in some ways, a hero. He wanted to stay to the very last, although they eventually had to just about kidnap him onto a helicopter because President Ford gave a direct order to get him out of there.

Nate: Yeah, he was a bit delusional thinking he could somehow rectify the situation, but he definitely showed courage staying as long as he did. I really enjoyed the story of the American Consul in Can Tho, Terry McNamara, who was basically abandoned by the CIA, and had to improvise his way out of the country by captaining a ship full of Americans and Vietnamese civilians downriver to the open sea. After going through various patrols, and dangers along the river, they then had to somehow find the American fleet once they reached the sea.

Dave: He was definitely a character. I really enjoyed Major James Kean and Master Sergeant Juan Valdez who were in charge of the Marines at the embassy. Their leadership was instrumental in, not only carrying out the evacuation as smoothly as possible, but also in keeping the morale and spirits of their soldiers high. The soldiers at the embassy revered and respected both of them, which was important when it was time to follow through with the evacuation. They held it together when times got tough, so their soldiers did too.

Nate: So who do you think would enjoy this book?

Dave: Well, I would say that for the average person,  if you want to understand the basics of what went on with the evacuation, this would be a good book. It gives you a good feel for what it was like in Saigon and for the soldiers who were stationed there.

Nate: Yeah, probably not a book for hard core military historians and Vietnam War buffs. Mostly because much of the book’s contents would be information they’re already aware of. And it simply doesn’t go into the detail of a “scholarly work”.

Dave: “Last Men Out” is mostly about the people who were involved in the evacuation, and what it was like to live through it. So I would say that if you’re interested in the more personal side of the story, this would be a book you would enjoy.

Dave:  I have to admit that I didn’t see the game when it aired because I was on my way to a wedding reception. I was listening to it on the radio in my car, and sat there in the parking lot at the wedding reception waiting to hear how it ended. I wasn’t going to miss the end, and am I ever glad I didn’t.

Nate:  Some games just have great endings, and although this game did have a great ending, that wasn’t what sets it apart from other college basketball games. Both teams played at a high level from start to finish. Several individual players had career games. And then there was the pressure that Duke was under to make it back to the Final Four to try and repeat as national champions.

Dave:  It was truly a game where the last team that had the ball was going to win – and that’s exactly what happened. Everyone thought Sean Woods was going to be the hero with his runner in the lane with 2.1 seconds left in overtime. But then Grant Hill makes about a 75 foot perfect pass to Christian Laettner, who knocks down the game winning shot. The accuracy of that throw, and the ability of Laettner to catch it and put himself in a position to turn around and make the shot were truly remarkable.

Nate:  I’ve heard behind the scenes snippets from this game before, such as Kentucky coach Rick Pitino wishing he hadn’t told his players to not foul on the final shot, because what eventually happened was that the Kentucky defenders were so afraid to foul that they didn’t really defend. Also, there has been debate over whether Pitino should have put someone on Grant Hill to defend the inbound pass. And while those issues are discussed, what I loved the most about this book is the way Wojciechowski  takes you behind the scenes of the players and the programs that were involved in the game.

Dave:  I really enjoyed the history part of the book as well. It’s hard to imagine, especially for young people, that Duke hasn’t always been the Duke we know now. The book explains how when Mike Krzyzewski came to Duke, they were pretty bad for his first three to four years. That’s hard to imagine. It’s also hard to imagine in this day and age a school and athletic director sticking with a coach through tough times like that. These days if you don’t show marked improvement within the first couple of years you’re gone.

Nate:  The players were really interesting as well. I enjoyed the fact that, although Duke had some of the blue chip recruits, they also had some guys who weren’t as highly recruited who turned out to be good or great players, and major contributors on those first championship teams.

Dave:  We also learned that Christian Laettner was a real jerk. Although I don’t know if that’s too much of a revelation.

Nate:  Yeah, but at the same time it was interesting to see how he knew how to press the right buttons on all of his teammates to make them better, and in turn make their team better. Like with Bobby Hurley – he ragged on Hurley all the time, but he knew that he needed to do that to Hurley in order to get the best out of him on the court. Hurley might not have liked it, but he was a better player in the long run, and Duke was a better team because of it.

Dave:  And while learning about Duke was interesting, the story of the Kentucky program, and their players, was even more remarkable. This was a program that, historically, had been as good as any other in the country. But it had been hit hard by the NCAA for violations, and basically was gutted, except for a few players who decided to stick around – mostly because of their love of Kentucky basketball.

Nate:  Yeah, it was mostly guys who had grown up in the state of Kentucky, had always dreamed about playing for Kentucky, and wouldn’t play anywhere else. They weren’t the most talented guys, but they were loyal, hard working, and Pitino pushed them to limits I’m sure none of them thought they had.

Dave:  And those are the guys who were seniors in this game against Duke. It’s hard to believe, when watching the game, that they weren’t highly recruited because they were impressive. And they meant so much to the Kentucky program that the decision was made at the end of the year to retire their jersey numbers.

Nate:  But the other part of the programs are the two coaches, who have been two of the most successful college basketball coaches of their generation, in Mike Krzyzewski and Rick Pitino.

Dave:  Yeah, they’ve both been incredibly successful, but you get to see how different they are in their styles and philosophies.

Nate:  And for Krzyzewski, even once he had brought Duke to national prominence, his teams were still seen as chokers. They finally broke through and won a national championship in 1991, but there were about five or six years in a row they made it to the Final Four, but came up short in the end.

Dave:  Pitino was also interesting. Although there was pressure on him to win because it was Kentucky basketball, he embraced that pressure, and in fact seemed to thrive on it. He came from a successful situation at the New York Knicks, knowing it was going to be difficult. He seemed to want the pressure and challenge that was going to come from the Kentucky job.

Nate:  I loved it when Wojciechowski told the story of Pitino bringing in a Sports Illustrated article talking about the depths Kentucky basketball had reached – they were actually on the cover. And Pitino announced that this was the last time Kentucky basketball would be called losers, and the next time they would appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated it would be because they had won a national championship. That was the kind of confidence and personality that program needed at that time, and he brought it in a big way.

Dave:  As far as recommending this book, I think it would appeal to any college basketball fan.

Nate:  I completely agree. You and I have no allegiance to Duke or Kentucky, but we still found the stories and histories of the programs, players, coaches, and the game itself to be interesting.

Dave:  You really get a feel for how these two programs have gotten to where they’re at right now, because since this game one or both of them have been among the premier teams in college basketball. Anyone who really follows college basketball, and we know there are a lot of die hard college basketball fans in this area, will appreciate the stories and get a good feel for how significant this game was, and how significant these two programs have become.

Dave:  I agree. Follett says at the end of the book that he has done a lot of research to make sure that the real characters in the book, such as Winston Churchill, Lenin, and Woodrow Wilson are only placed in places where he knows they were at the time, or that they could have potentially been. When he did an author talk here at the library several years ago, he said that he spends a great deal of time, and actually has a staff doing research for him, to ensure that the historical details in his books are completely accurate.

Nate:  I’m not an expert on this period in time, but I did happen to read a couple of books not too long ago about World War I, most notably “The Guns of August” by Barbara Tuchman, and I can say that his descriptions of the political situation leading up to the start of the war, as well as the Battle of the Marne are about as accurate as you can get. He gets incredibly detailed, and I didn’t find one thing that I could say was not true. So in my opinion, the research is impeccable.

Dave:  One thing I enjoyed about this book was the way the story portrayed the changes in the world during this time. I’m not an expert on the first quarter of the 20^th Century either, but you get a real sense of the changes that were happening politically, as well as the new ideas that were popping up and being hailed by all levels of society.

Nate:  And that’s one of the great things about this book, as well as some of Follett’s other historical fiction, is that he has characters representing all of the different classes in society. He has rich European aristocrats, middle to upper class Americans, poor English miners, poor working class Russians, and middle class Europeans. But one thing that makes “Fall of Giants” so interesting, and the title so appropriate, is what you said about the changes taking place during this time period. One of the most radical changes that has taken place over the past few centuries is the fall of the “old world” monarchies and aristocracies. And much of this change happened during and after World War I.

Dave:  Absolutely. And you also had new ideas, such as the rights of workers, women’s suffrage, and socialism. Put all of that together and it was an explosive time, which is why “Fall of Giants” is so interesting. I have to say that in some of Ken Follett’s books the love scenes and descriptions of violence can be somewhat graphic, but in this particular one they weren’t. So if anyone has concerns about reading a book by Follett because of that, you wouldn’t have to worry about that in this particular book.

Nate:  The other thing I would say about Ken Follett is that he is also widely known as a writer of suspense/thriller/spy novels. He’s recently come to the historical fiction genre, beginning with “The Pillars of the Earth” and “World Without End”, and now continuing on with “Fall of Giants”. But there might be those out there who think of Ken Follett as a writer of spy novels, and that really isn’t the case anymore.

Dave:  That’s true. He’s kind of re-invented himself, and now is largely dedicated to writing historical fiction in the style of the sweeping epics. The other thing that could keep people away from “Fall of Giants” is its size.

Nate:  It’s over 1,000 pages, but it actually reads pretty quickly. There really isn’t any filler – and by that I mean you couldn’t take out a couple hundred pages and still have the same book. It really is a 1,000 page story, and you won’t be bored.

Dave:  For me personally, I found the middle of the book which focused on World War I to be the most interesting because of the strategies of the war. I found it especially interesting that the separation of the classes was evident even in the military.

Nate:  Yeah, all of the majors and lieutenants were aristocrats – many of whom had no real military experience, and all of the privates and those on the front lines were the workers and miners back home. Class divisions were evident on the battlefield, just as they were everywhere else.

Dave:  I’m definitely looking forward to the sequel to this book which is supposed to be coming out sometime in September, I believe.

Nate:  And it’s definitely foreshadowed that the second book will take place around World War II. At the end of “Fall of Giants” Hitler and Stalin are mentioned, and there are a few other items referenced that lead you to believe that is where the story is headed.

Dave:  The nice thing about the book though, is that you don’t necessarily have to read the whole trilogy. If you were to just read “Fall of Giants”, and you didn’t want to continue in the series that would be just fine. There’s no cliffhanger ending that will be resolved in the next book. It has a definite ending point. So if you would be concerned about reading this book and getting sucked into a trilogy, that’s not the case at all.

Nate:  I think the great thing about “Fall of Giants”, as with other historical fiction, is that you’re not only reading a great book of fiction, with interesting characters, but you’re also learning a lot about the time period in which the book is set.

Dave:  True, and I’d be interested in knowing from other people who read a lot of historical fiction how they think Ken Follett’s books rank with other well known authors who write similarly, such as James Michener and Leon Uris. I don’t read a lot of historical fiction, so I’d be interested to know how they think Follett compares.

Nate:  I haven’t read much historical fiction either, and really have only read Follett, starting with “The Pillars of the Earth”. So like you, I would be interested in knowing how he rates with some of the other pre-eminent authors of the genre. I do think anyone who enjoys historical fiction would enjoy “Fall of Giants”.

Dave:  I agree. It’s a book that will grab the interest of anyone interested in a good novel set in the past.

Nate:  Exactly. A way to determine latitude had been devised much earlier, but if you didn’t know longitude, it was possible you could be 100 miles further east or west than you thought you were, making navigation extremely difficult and hazardous. Countless ships were lost at sea, shipwrecked, delayed, or had crews that died of scurvy due to depleted rations from the 15^th through the 18^th centuries – and much of this was a direct result of not knowing exactly where you were on the ocean.

Dave:  There were essentially two methods for determining longitude that came to the forefront during the 18^th century when this problem was being tackled. One was the astronomical method, which consisted of determining longitude by looking at objects such as stars, planets, and moons to figure out your position, and the other was the mechanical method, which entailed building a clock which could keep track of the time back at your home port. Because if you knew what time it was there, and you knew what time it was where you were on the ocean, you could figure out your position.

Nate:  Both of these methods had issues that had to be resolved, however. On the mechanical side, there had never been a clock built that could keep time at sea. Conditions at sea, such as moisture, changing temperatures, and rolling waves had always interfered with its functions, not allowing it to be exact enough. To be useful, a timepiece could not lose more than three seconds in twenty four hours – any more than that and a ship would not be able to determine its position accurately enough. And on the astronomical side, complete maps of the stars had not been done up to this point in history, so that solution seemed far off as well.

Dave:  And while the astronomers of the day scrambled to complete maps of the stars, a little known English clockmaker took up the challenge of determining longitude, and solved it with relative ease.

Nate:  And that clockmaker, John Harrison, was an interesting guy, as he was totally self made. He had never really had any formal training in building clocks, yet the pieces he made were remarkable. He built a clock tower in Brocklesby Park in England that has run continuously since 1722 – the only time it stopped was when it was refurbished in 1884. He applied this genius to building a longitude clock, or chronometer, and like you said, built one without too much trouble.

John Harrison

Dave:  Building one wasn’t too much trouble, but receiving recognition for it became a struggle he would endure for decades. He actually ended up building four chronometers, each one being an improvement over the last. I have to say, after reading this book, I was taken back to another book we reviewed some time ago about the journey of the Apollo astronauts to the moon. It seemed like we’d kind of come full circle. It’s amazing to think that the astronauts who went to the moon were able to land within a few hundred feet of where they were supposed to. And the solution to determining longitude was the beginning of mankind’s ability to figure out exact location. How many doors did that open up? It’s almost impossible to say.

Nate:  I agree. You really take for granted things that have always been there, and are always there for you. We just have to look at a watch, cell phone, clock on the wall, or any other device that says the time, no matter where we are, and we know it will be correct. We don’t have to do any calculations, or wonder how we’re going to figure it out. The same goes for knowing our position in the world. From maps, to GPS, determining location is something that is so easy and readily available that we don’t even think about it.

Dave:  But in the old days of sea exploration that knowledge wasn’t “just there”, and it was a real problem. After reading this book, it’s obvious why the routes the early explorers took seemed to zig zag all over the place.

Nate:  I find it amazing they ever found their way, to be totally honest. And it wasn’t just an issue with exploring. It was a commerce problem as well.

Dave:  Absolutely. You had ships going down at sea with hulls full of valuable cargo. So it wasn’t just loss of life, it was also the loss of profits.

Nate:  Another thing I found interesting in this book were the discoveries made while trying to find a solution to longitude. Like we said, a complete map of the stars had not been made up this point in history. Well, by the time the problem had been solved, star maps were more complete than they had ever been. And astronomers had also learned a lot more about the sun and moon, as far as their cycles, and the effects both have on the earth.

John Harrison's First Chronometer

Dave:  It’s always interesting to see what discoveries are made when people are trying to find the answer to something else. The way map making changed after the introduction of chronometers is interesting as well. The quality and accuracy of maps improved immensely during this time, and the view of the world began to take more of a modern feel. I have to say, I found John Harrison to be an interesting character. There wasn’t a lot of “character development” in this book, and with Harrison largely because not much is known about his early years. But his dedication to building the perfect chronometer, and the struggle he had trying to earn recognition, and the monetary reward that was due to him is interesting. People always like stories about underdogs, and this is an underdog story.

Nate:  It’s also a story about a mechanical genius. Like we said, this was someone who was totally self-made and yet his devices were absolutely revolutionary, and worked better than any devices previously made. When he showed his chronometer to others within the clock making fraternity, they were fascinated and awed by his work.

Dave:  After reading the book, I also thought about how this continued to give England a leg up in naval supremacy. They had already been the premier naval power in the world for a couple of centuries, but this helped allow them to maintain that dominance of the seas for a lot longer.

Nate:  It was also fun to read about Rupert T. Gould, who restored Harrison’s clocks in the 20^th century. He was not happy that these historically significant pieces had been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. Although they had been kept over the years, they had not been cared for.

Dave:  That’s right. So he went about restoring them, even though he had no experience or knowledge of working with clocks. In that respect he was in the same boat Harrison was when he started out.

Nate:  And interestingly enough, he spent the most time restoring Harrison’s third clock, which is the one Harrison took the most time to build. It seems they had many of the same issues with that one, even though their work was almost two centuries apart. So, who would you recommend this book to?

Dave:  I think anyone who has an interest in history, science, or astronomy would enjoy it.

Nate:  I agree. I would also include those who are interested in maps or map making, as well as anyone interested in clocks or clock making. The book is less than 200 pages, so it’s short, and not a huge time commitment. So if you have even a small interest in any of these areas I’d recommend giving it a shot. I think you’ll really enjoy it.

Dave:  And once you’ve read it, you might check out the made for TV movie based on the story, also called “Longitude”. It came out several years ago and stars Jeremy Irons and Michael Gambon. It’s an excellent two part mini-series/movie, and we have it here at the library as well.

Dave:  And all of those influences shaped him. Not just the coaches, but also his devout Catholicism. His influences all had to do with discipline, and showed only one way of doing things. Any other way was wrong. And that was how he was as a football coach – it was either his way or the highway. I was a kid when he was coaching all those great Packer teams, and I didn’t like him much. Of course, he beat the Chiefs in the first Super Bowl, so that didn’t help, but he just seemed like a mean tyrant. After reading the book, you see that there was another side to him – one that really cared for his players despite all the bluster.

Nate:  You’re right. Not only did he love his players, but his players really loved him. Despite all the yelling and the back breaking hard work, the players knew he was pushing them to be their best, and that he was turning them into winners. And he knew which players he could push more than others. For example, Paul Hornung was one of his favorites, but he yelled at him mercilessly. And he did it because he knew Hornung could take it. But he didn’t do that to everyone because he knew that some players couldn’t handle that, and wouldn’t respond to it. I think that’s something that any good coach knows how to do, and Lombardi was a master.

Dave:  Speaking of Hornung, I thought it was crazy that, when he was called to active duty in the military, Lombardi called President Kennedy and had his service days changed so that he could play football for the Packers on Sunday.

Nate:  That was Lombardi’s personality.  If he wanted something to happen, he would make it happen, and if he was refused for whatever reason, he would have nothing to do with you after that.

Dave:  He was also the first coach to be a kind of philosopher coach.  He had his own book and speech that he gave on various occasions talking about his philosophies on life and success.  Now it seems like every coach that experiences some success comes out with a book detailing their philosophies, but Lombardi was really the first to do that.

Nate:  His success certainly stemmed from his philosophies, and the work ethic he imposed on his players, but he had some incredible players as well. I think there are about a dozen players from his great Packers’ teams that are in the Hall of Fame.

Dave:  True, but it’s worth noting that those Packers’ teams were truly great TEAMS. Some of those guys might not have had the careers they had if they had played for another coach, in another system. Bart Starr comes to mind as someone who was not the best quarterback in the world, but knew how to play within Lombardi’s system and had great success. Something else that struck me was some of the bizarre stuff he did around contract negotiations with his players.

Nate:  I know. He would play mind games during negotiations, and made it so that the players were almost afraid to approach him about new contracts or raises.

Dave:  And when Jim Ringo brought an agent to his negotiations, Lombardi left the room for a few minutes, came back and informed the two of them that they could now discuss a new contract with the Eagles because he had just traded Ringo to Philadelphia. That was how serious he was about not dealing with an agent. Obviously this was before the players union became as powerful as it is now, but it showed how he was old school and was not a fan of the “new” way of doing things. He died young, but you wonder if he had lived another twenty years how successful he would have been dealing with different rules, and whether or not he would have been able to stand it.

Nate:  He was only in his fifties when he died of cancer, but like you said his views already seemed to be outdated.  His worldview in general just didn’t seem to be in tune with what was going on in the 1960’s in this country. I really don’t know how successful he would have been. In his one year with the Redskins he dramatically increased their win total, but he knew he was going to need more talented players. We’ve talked about the talent he had on the Packers and he knew he didn’t have that kind of talent in Washington. It would have been interesting to see him working with the modern athlete under the new rules, and not having the kind of control he had in Green Bay. Lombardi was definitely a control freak, and not having complete control probably would have driven him crazy.

Dave:  Do you think Vince Lombardi is still the iconic figure he once was?

Nate:  I don’t know. His influence might be diminishing the further we get from his coaching days. But there certainly is something to be said for having your name on the Super Bowl Trophy. His name is always in the consciousness of football fans that hear about the Lombardi Trophy and see the old NFL films of him at the chalkboard diagramming his famed sweep play.

Dave:  I think one of the most interesting things is how quickly he became a national icon. He had made a bit of a name for himself within the football world as an assistant at Army and for the Giants, but when the Packers hired him to be their head coach, a lot of people wondered who in the world Vince Lombardi was.

Nate:  Yeah, but you’re right – it didn’t take him long to enter the national spotlight. Within two years of taking the job his team was playing for the NFL Championship, and following that season they won five of the next seven championships. Within three years of taking the job he was one of the hottest names out there. Everyone wanted a piece of him, and everyone knew his name. His was definitely a meteoric rise.

Dave:  In 1968 both Nixon and Humphrey even considered him as a Vice Presidential candidate. That’s how far his influence went.

Nate:  So who do you think would enjoy this book?

Dave:  Well, I think it definitely would appeal more to football fans, but also to someone wanting to read about a person who worked their way up through the ranks to the highest level of their profession.

Nate:  I agree. I don’t know if he’s someone you’d want to model yourself after, as he had many flaws and could be a walking contradiction in terms of his values and priorities. He had a strained relationship with his kids and wife despite the fact that he claimed family was of utmost importance. But he was certainly an interesting individual, whose prominence in the sports world can’t be understated.

Dave:  Absolutely. If you’re a sports fan, or especially a football fan, you would enjoy reading this book.

Nate: It’s interesting to see how important the football team is to Smith Center. It’s woven into the fabric of the community, is a source of pride for everyone there, and is a privilege for the young boys in the town to be a part of. I’m not from Kansas originally, but where I grew up in Indiana there were a lot of small towns similar to Smith Center with high schools and athletic teams that were closely tied to their communities. So the book really struck home with me in terms of how close a small community can become to a traditionally successful high school program. I think it’s like that throughout many small towns in the Midwest.

Dave: I know when I lived in Brown County many years ago, the football team, and games, were very important. They were always events in the town. But what has set Smith Center’s football team apart from other programs throughout the Midwest seems to be the leadership and mentoring of their head coach, Roger Barta.  His philosophy is simple: “Respect each other, then learn to love each other, and together we are champions”.

Nate: It seems almost comically simple, but that philosophy, combined with the expectation of doing your best, and leading an exemplary lifestyle have yielded amazing success. After reading this book, I read Lou Holtz’s autobiography, and it was interesting to see how similar his and Coach Barta’s philosophies are.  Simple, but effective.

Dave: The other thing that is refreshing about the book is seeing small town kids who are working hard, not just on the football field. A lot of these guys go home after practice, or on the weekend, and work on the farm, or go to a job. They aren’t the spoiled athletes we’ve gotten used to seeing in our society. They’re just small town kids with a strong work ethic.

Nate: And football is passed down, many times from father to son.  It was interesting to see how many kids on the team had Dads who had not only played at Smith Center, but who had played for Coach Barta. Most of the guys on his staff are former players, and there is a real sense of how important the Smith Center football family is, in terms of the former players keeping ties to the school.

Dave: A perfect example of that is Mark Simoneau, who played at Smith Center, then Kansas State, and eventually made it to the NFL. A bunch of Smith Center players, coaches, and fans went to Kansas State for an event and had a chance to meet Simoneau.  Drape relates in his book that Simoneau not only said hi, but spent considerable time with them asking about the team, the school, and the town. It was clear that his time at Smith Center, and on the football team was very important to him, and he would never be too big to take time to talk to the Smith Center folks.

Nate: Coach Barta told Drape something along the lines of, “We’re not in the business of turning boys into good and successful football players, we’re in the business of turning boys into good and successful young men”. This philosophy, and a respect for this philosophy by Coach Barta’s former players is evidenced in the book.

Dave: It’s worth noting that Mark Simoneau really is the exception when it comes to Smith Center football players moving on to big time success on the gridiron after graduation. Most of the guys that come through the program aren’t the most talented, but they work hard in the weight room, on the practice field, play as a team, and win games.

Nate: Drape conveys in the book that most of the boys on the team are happy to play football on the next level at junior colleges, or at Sterling College, and understand that the likelihood of the big universities knocking on their doors is pretty slim. But for many of them, having the opportunity to play at a small college is a dream in itself. One of the players on the 2008 team received the opportunity to play at Sterling College and was the first member of his family to go to college.

Dave: It really struck me reading this book that it still would have been a good story even if the football team hadn’t been going for the state record of consecutive wins and a fifth straight state championship, because the book went beyond the results on the field. Drape shows the attitude, the lifestyles, and the priorities of the kids, the coaches, and the town, and paints an interesting picture of a small town.

Nate: At the same time, it’s also interesting to note that when Drape called Coach Barta to ask if he could follow them for the season while they were attempting to achieve all of these milestones on the field, Barta told him that was fine, but that the team might not win all their games. This was because the senior class that had provided Smith Center with its four consecutive state titles had graduated, and he really didn’t know if the incoming senior class would step up and show the same kind of attitude, work ethic, desire, and love the previous class did.

Dave: True. That made it fun to watch the maturation of the incoming seniors, and the way they slowly became a team, because at the beginning they weren’t a very close knit bunch at all. But by the end they were as much of a team, and loved each other as much as any other team Coach Barta had probably ever coached. You’re right, though, at the beginning of the season, there was no guarantee they were going to go undefeated and win a state title.

Nate: They had a couple of close games they had to fight through. But they managed to win those games, they continued to improve, and they finished the season undefeated.

Dave: Another part of this story is that the author, Joe Drape actually went out to Smith Center initially to cover the national story in 2007 when Smith Center scored 72 points in the first quarter against Plainville. I’m sure that Drape was expecting to find a win at all costs coach, in the Vince Lombardi mold.

Nate: But instead he found a coach who was actually embarrassed that had even happened, and doesn’t like to talk about it to this day.

Dave: Right. And that was part of what intrigued him so much about Coach Barta and the Smith Center football program, and led him to bring his family out to Smith Center for a year and write this book.

Nate: So, who do you think would like this book?

Dave: Well, we’ve made it pretty clear that this is a book that transcends football and the results on the field. It’s a book about life, and how hard work can bring success no matter what you’re doing. I think it would be a good book for anyone to read, but especially young people.

Nate: I completely agree. Likewise, sports and football fans would certainly enjoy it, but I think it would also be a good book for anyone in Kansas or the Midwest to read, or anyone wanting to know about the way life is in small town America. I think it’s a book that says a lot of positive things about how to live, and would appeal to a wide audience.

Click here for more information about Kansas Reads, as well as a listing of the many programs we will be having here at the library in the next month connected to “Our Boys”.  The programs include an author talk by Joe Drape on February 6 and a visit from Roger and Brooks Barta on March 4!

Nate:  I completely agree. Even though he writes non-fiction, he’s a good writer, and makes his books easy and enjoyable to read. A lot of times when you read a scholarly book, it can be time consuming because the author simply can’t write a good narrative. There are a lot of good facts cloaked in bad writing. Ellis certainly does not have this problem. I also really enjoy the time period he writes about. He is an authority on early American history and has written several books about the founding fathers and how their actions shaped our country.

Dave:  In this particular book he writes about several different topics, including things that did happen at the founding of the republic that were good, but also discussing things that didn’t happen that probably should have.

Nate:  Like the inability of our founding fathers to abolish slavery and come up with a just solution for sharing the land with the Native Americans.

Dave:  Exactly. Ellis led me to believe that they knew they should have been addressing those issues, but they didn’t want to be bogged down by them, and left them to be addressed by someone else.

Nate:  My sense has always been that this country could have never been established by our founding fathers if they set a hard fast line against slavery. The southern states would’ve never agreed to that, and therefore would’ve never agreed to join the new nation. And that was the feeling I got from reading Ellis as well. So I think the question is whether or not it was worth it to form the country and leave it to be dealt with through civil war, or whether another approach should have been taken. Either way, these were difficult questions with difficult answers.

Dave:  And ultimately the founding fathers decided it was more important to form the republic and let future generations sort out those messy issues. Despite all of the good ideas and solutions they had for so many other problems, the solutions they did come up with to deal with the slavery issue simply weren’t good, or viable.

Nate:  Yeah, the only good solution was to get rid of it, and that wasn’t going to happen.

Dave:  When I first picked up this book, I thought it would be a book talking about the founding fathers and the Constitution with a holy reverence, making them out to be larger than life. But I quickly found out that it was the opposite. Ellis talks about the founding fathers as regular people with a great vision.

Nate:  Yes, they were extraordinary men with some brilliant ideas, but they were just as flawed as anyone else. As Ellis points out, they were the right people, at the right place, in the right time period to create a country and government of this type.

Dave:  And it wasn’t as seamless as the high school history books sometimes make it out to be. I think that’s what most people are familiar with. The reality was that for most of the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the formation of this country as it is, was a hard sell to the colonies they represented.

Nate:  Exactly. What gets lost a lot of times is the fact that the colonies were used to being separate entities, not “united states”. They each had their own interests and were sometimes distrustful of the other colonies. There was no great sense of unity. Ellis does a great job in this book of talking through these issues and showing how the founding fathers made it work.

Dave:  What do you think the founding fathers would think about some of the constitutional issues of our time?

Nate:  Gosh, I don’t think they could have conceived of half the things we argue about today. The world has simply changed so much. I think that’s part of the flaw in trying to figure out “original intent”. It seems to me that the founding fathers created the document to be flexible, so that it could be adjusted and altered as need be. I think that’s the genius of the Constitution. So what kind of a recommendation would you make for this book?

Dave:  I think this is a good read for anyone who wants to know more about American history, beyond the high school textbook. Obviously, if you have no interest in history it won’t appeal to you. However, if you have even a passing interest in history, especially American history, I think you would enjoy Ellis’s book.

Nate:  I completely agree. Because of the way Ellis writes, you won’t get bogged down in language and “scholarly” facts. Yes, the writing is scholarly, but it’s fun and interesting to read. I think anyone interested in learning more about the founding of our country would enjoy reading “American Creation”.

Photo Credit

Dave:  I remember him at Royals games when he was a scout because he always sat in the same seat. I finally found out who he was, a former player and manager for the Kansas City Monarchs in the Negro Leagues, so I remember knowing about him for awhile. He really is like a Moses figure in baseball, where he was involved in so much of the history of the game, as a player, a coach, a scout, and finally a spokesperson. He was never the best at any of those things, but he was always good, and such a high quality person, that he commanded the respect of everyone who came into contact with him.

Nate:  In his book, Posnanski goes with O’Neil on his travels around the country, recounting his experiences, stories, and outlook on life with his readers.  There seemed to me to be two aspects to the book. One was learning some of the history of the Negro Leagues through the stories told by O’Neil and his former teammates and friends he meets in his travels, such as Willie Mays, Monte Irvin, and Red Moore. But the other aspect is O’Neil himself, and his outlook on life.

Dave:  After reading the book, you really have to wonder if there’s ever been anyone who appreciated life more than Buck O’Neil. Despite the many injustices he experienced in his life, he never showed any bitterness, and he seemed to appreciate every day he had.

Nate:  Exactly. As much as Buck O’Neil was an ambassador of baseball, he was also an ambassador of life. Throughout the year Posnanski spent with O’Neil in the book, he was constantly brightening people’s spirits, making friends, spreading goodwill, and enjoying what life had to throw at him each and every day.

Dave:  Even when he was denied entrance to the Baseball Hall of Fame, one of his first reactions was wondering who they would ask to introduce all of the fine players who did make it in.

Nate:  And hoping that he would be chosen because it would be another chance to tell the story, and share memories and insights with another group of people about players he had worked so hard to get recognition for.

Dave:  When this book came out, Joe Posnanski came to the library to talk about it, and you could really tell how much Buck O’Neil meant to him.

Nate:  That definitely comes through in the book. He knew O’Neil before he followed him around to write it, but you can tell that being with him for that year had a profound effect on him. Which is easy to understand. I’ve talked to people who had a chance to meet him and talk to him, and they say that just in the few minutes they spent with him, he made them feel as though they were the most important person in the world.

Dave:  I had the pleasure of meeting him, and that was absolutely true of my experience. He always wanted to know your name and take a few minutes to hear what was on your mind.  Your story was important to him.

Nate:  I guess it’s pretty obvious by our discussion here, but this is not a book that would just appeal to a sports fan. Certainly if you like baseball, you’ll like the book. But if you aren’t a serious sports fan, you will still appreciate Buck O’Neil and the way he carried himself and lived his life.

Dave:  Definitely.  This is a book that would appeal to anyone. I’ve read it several times, and I know I’ll read it again, which is probably the best thing you can say about a book. It will make you feel good about life. One other thing I’d like to mention is the Negro League’s Museum in Kansas City located on 18^th and Vine. Buck was instrumental in making that what it is, and assuring that it kept going. In fact, most of the time he was out on the road, he was making appearances trying to raise money for the museum.

Nate:  You’re right. If you’ve never been to the Negro Leagues Museum, it’s worth the trip, and probably the greatest way you could pay tribute to Buck O’Neil. He always wanted an opportunity to tell the story and the museum does just that.