Initially, one of the first things that caught my attention whilst reading is that Pringle is not necessarily one of Teddy Roosevelt’s fans. Instead of providing a flattering view of Roosevelt’s life, this book sets an early tone that ranges from skeptical to critical. Far from embracing Roosevelt’s concepts, Pringle unlike his adversaries whom remember a decisive leader, recalls a president who makes hasty decisions on temporary emotions. Instead of making favorable notions about the Panama Canal, wilderness conservation and moves against monopolies, Pringle focuses on the president’s greatest weaknesses. …show more content…
Pringle stands strong and ceases to buy into the popular view of Teddy’s presidency. Though the biography is filled with knowledge, it is lacking in some departments. For example, there is little to no mention of Roosevelt’s family. Pringle ignores a critical dimension of Theodore Roosevelt’s life that could have explained his logic and decisions. The author also looks past his early career in Washington and New York City, some major campaigns, and his influential trips to Africa and South America. While avoiding the feel of a textbook, this biography is clearly more focused on Roosevelt’s political career rather on much else. Pringle also tends to disorganize event, the minority of the book is chronologically correct but it frequently flashes backward and forward in time or references some things not previously brought up. From this, I can conclude some readers will find the book’s flow repetitive, and