As usual, he was mysterious. He makes even a trip to the barber seem like a plot to overthrow the state.

Historical fiction, not history. Published in 1973, providing the starting point for Vidal’s in-progress American history series. Pseudo biography of the second most hated man in the early republic. Factual historical errors could be what Burr thought was real. Like most politicians, Aaron Burr is the center of his universe.

“I think it splendid that he is still among us. Able to tell us the way things really were.” “‘Really were’? Perhaps. Yet isn’t it better that we make our own useful version of our history and put away—in the attic, as it were—the sadder, less edifying details?”

Excellent device of biographer as reporter and filter. Skillfully weaves skepticism with reality shaped by politics. Popularity is possibly based on revision of popular stereotypes. Plotting and storytelling are mostly good, but inconsistent. If this exemplifies Vidal’s writing, one wonders how he earned his reputation.

“You know, I made Hamilton a giant by killing him. If he had lived, he would have continued his decline. He would have been quite forgotten by now. Like me.”

Opinions probably reflect Vidal more than Burr. Writing as fiction frees Vidal to impute motives and intentions. Aims at then-current affairs. Remember, this was written during Nixon’s Watergate intrigues.

Is this true? I don’t know. I am simply taking it all down.

Two and a half stars. I give this novel the extra half star because my enjoyment of the book definitely suffered from having just read Hamilton.

So...I know what really happened at the time of the founding of the U.S., and I don't have a lot of patience with author Gore Vidal's telling me that Aaron Burr is a founding father, much better than George Washington, and a generally misunderstood hero of the American Revolution. I guess this sort of thing was more acceptable in the mid 1970s when the book was first published, and Vidal was a TV personality. As a matter of fact, as I "listened" to Burr speak while reading this book, I heard Vidal's very clever voice and phraseology. I wonder if Vidal thought he was Burr reincarnated.

After Burr kills Alexander Hamilton, the book treats Burr's aborted plans to invade Mexico, and this was pretty interesting to me. Though Burr (in Vidal's voice) does not consider himself a self-serving traitor, he really does seem like a self-serving criminal of some sort, and I wonder if Vidal even realized this.

The book is annoying.

Gore Vidal has long been a “name” whose work I didn’t really know. He seemed almost more famous for being famous than for any particular thing he’d written. So, when this one cropped up on sale, I figured I’d give it a shot.

As a concept, I love this book. A young man and partisan of Aaron Burr is hired to write a scandalous hit-job on Martin Van Buren by claiming that the Presidential candidate is actually the son of the disgraced old man. The result is a novel told back-and-forth between a present of Charlie Schuyler as he navigates the United States of the middle 1830s and a past of Burr’s life.

Burr’s voice, as Vidal gives it to us, is rich and ironic. He offers a view of American history that’s been buried by subsequent consensus, but that comes across as cutting and clever. His Alexander Hamilton isn’t the brilliant but flawed figure of musical fame, but rather an always conniving and striving upstart, jealous of Burr’s distinguished pedigree. (I hadn’t known it, but Burr was the grandson of the famous Jonathan “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” Edwards as well as the son of the president of what would become Princeton.) His Thomas Jefferson isn’t the great, deistic sage we know, but rather a serial promise-breaker, a master politician, and a man capable of switching his philosophy as necessary.

The Burr we hear is a voice of dissent who lives long enough to be among the last major participants in the Revolutionary moment. He comes to us as a curmudgeon, a scoundrel even, but an unapologetic one.

At the same time, it’s hard to imagine anyone writing this book today. Forty-five years later, most of the references that seem essential to understanding it have simply fallen out of common knowledge. I found myself checking and re-checking Wikipedia for reminders of just who a whole host of secondary characters are. I remember Henry Clay and John Calhoun. But William Wirt? Samuel Swartwout? Some of these are colorful scoundrels in their own right, characters who must once have been near household names and who helped define American history. Today, well, they’re hyperlinks.

I enjoy the history lesson – that’s much of what kept me in this – but it’s striking to think that Vidal must have been writing for an audience (perhaps imaginary even then) sufficiently saturated in American history to recognize the nature of the revisionism he was exploring. In other words, he had faith there were enough “patriots” (in his Burr’s ironic sense of the word) to follow his fundamental claim.

As a consequence, there’s an airy elitism that pervades this, some of it Burr’s and some of it Vidal’s – himself the scion of a distinguished American family that history may have left behind. Vidal turns out to be every bit the master aphorist I’d heard he was. I didn’t write down any of the great one-liners he pulls off, but there are many turns of phrase that I wish I’d been clever enough to think of. Even so, that contributes to the sense that this is something that’s condescending to me, and to most of us reading it. We’re some of Jefferson’s great unwashed, products not of the openly cynical opportunism of Burr (who narrowly escaped execution as a traitor hoping to establish himself emperor of a region comprised of several of what are now some of our Southern states) but of the subtler hypocrisy of Jefferson and his “Virginia junto.”

There’s much to enjoy here if you’re willing to double-check the history against Burr/Vidal’s version. It can drag in places since it takes a while to find Charlie’s story, but it’s a lot of fun too. I understand Vidal wrote a loose series of these histories, books that challenge our received version of the events that shaped who we are as a nation. I won’t rush onto the next, but I’ll be on the lookout for it sometime down the road.

"Shortly before midnight, July 1, 1833, Colonel Aaron Burr, aged 77, married Eliza Jumel, born Bowen 58 years ago (more likely 65 but remember: she is prone to litigation)," is the opening line. And we are off and running, the very subtle jokes (and the more subtler, the better) come fast and furious, with Vidal's excellent "fiction" story. In the author's acknowledgements at the end of the book, he writes "I have made up conversation, but whenever possible I have used actual phrases of the speaker." Isn't that exactly what non-fiction writers do: construct conversations they could not possibly have heard? Burr also admits that his narrator, a young journalist, is indeed fictional. But when an author writes an historical biography, isn't the author the narrator? This story clings so close to what I know as "what really happened" that I question whether this should be classified as fiction or non-fiction. I've read books classified as non-fiction (Preston's 2017 "Lost City of the Monkey God', a seemingly fictional adventure thriller comes first to mind) that feel more fictional than "Burr". A very fine line, indeed. But, to the book itself. there are many excellent quotes:
"...Hamilton...wanted honour for itself alone, as did the best of us," which sounds solid and true, then a few pages later, "...during the Adams administration Alexander Hamilton was British Agent Seven, and paid for by London," which I know nothing about and may veer into fictional waters. (But, oh, what a great follow-up to the current "Hamilton" stage show that would make: "Hamilton: Agent 007.") I loved this literary reference: "As always with [third President] Jefferson....we drank too much...like characters in Boccaccio, we played at enjoying ourselves during a plague year (each wondering to himself who would be next to die)." When [second] President John Adams publishes the Sedition Act [shutting down news sources blatantly false], Hamilton shows despair but admits, "After all, deporting foreigners is a popular thing to do." Now, how is that for relevancy to today? And I couldn't agree more when Jefferson says "I think that this business of party is demeaning to all of us", while at the same time Jefferson (representing a new Republican movement against the powerful status quo) is involved directly with the gerrymandering of New York districts so that he can win all of New York's Electoral College votes. (It works and Jefferson wins the election with Burr as VP.) And again, it's Hamilton, standing up again for the ideals of an original America in which all people are equal under the law, who suggests that "No longer would presidential electors be chose by the legislature; rather, they would be elected directly by the people." Now, imagine that! One vote by one person would COUNT as a vote, making the USA a true democracy, which we've never been because citizens have never been able to vote directly for the President. You might be thinking I'm a Hamilton fan, and you'd be right. Hamilton shines bright in McCullough's Pulitzer Prize winning "John Adams"; Hamilton stuns with his story as depicted in the stage show: an immigrant legally enters America, rises up to become a Founding Father, creates the world's most powerful financial system on his own, then his shot by Burr in an illegal but agreed-upon duel; and Hamilton shines here as a central moral compass which [first] President/General Washington admires greatly. Late in the book, Burr is charged with the murder of Hamilton. And, when Burr is charged with treason, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall rules that "all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors." Oh, if only John Marshall were here today, how many politicians would be charged with treason? With that, I'll end my review and state I highly recommend this work: it is very entertaining and in my opinion clings close to the true story of our Founding Fathers. And, the final line, the line that solves a central mystery played out through the entire novel, a shocker, is one of the great last lines in literature, wrapping up the story perfectly, beautifully. (Don't look ahead!) I've read other books by Gore Vidal and always wondered why he was so revered. Now I know.

Amusing read, with so much wisdom delivered, that I, not the least, repress the urge to despise Jefferson.
The book is constructed with two parallel timelines - Burr's past and (Charlie's) present- fundamental for historical events and plot development. Even though its crux Charlie S (his amour Helen's murder seems to be a setup in order to publish a right version of his book, along with his birth identity, a contrived creation to appeal) is fictional, the book is mostly convincing.
I don't flip to glorify Burr, but I doubt he could have accomplished less than Hamilton had both not been killed (politically for Burr). He was a noble and intelligent man, failed politician, taking life in a less serious philosophical manner than what a statesman were required.

Oh my, this was brilliant and entertaining. I needed to know about Aaron Burr and the history of our nation, and this was a riveting expose of the people, the petty politics, the smells and sins of our nation’s creators. It was also my first by Vidal, and will read many more if I have that much time. The plot was of the type that works well for me, a young man on a mysterious journey to uncover the enigmatic (and magnetic) statesman who was nearly president. Burr’s intellect and talent for governing were nearly unmatched, save his nemesis, Hamilton. The account of the plodding figurehead, Washington, the man who wanted to be king, was hilarious. The shifty Jefferson, the great hypocrite, who was a far greater politician than statesman, is laid bare.

Nearly all the characters are real, and scholarship is impressive. Many events seemed over the top and incredulous, yet when I googled them they were all true. Incredible that Vidal wrote this in 1973, well before Jefferson’s fatherhood of multiple children by Sarah Hemmings was well known. This book must have been absolutely scandalous for its time, and took great courage to write. This book changed my view of history, made it come alive in a way that history books rarely do. It may not- no it is not – “factual” yet like great literature seemed truer than those other accounts. Washington (and in fact the colonists) rarely won any direct conflicts in the revolutionary war (except those aided by the French). Here’s an account of the “military” (p. 54): “But difficult it was, always, for Washington to maintain an army. The rich tended to be pro-British, while the poor were not interested in whether or not American merchants paid taxes to a far-away island. The truth is that except for a handful of ambitious lawyers, there were very few “patriots” in 1775.” Heresy!

On Jefferson (p. 207): “It was Jefferson’s conceit that he alone represented democracy and that all the rest of us from Washington to Adams to Hamilton wanted to wear crowns and tax his cup of tea”. (p 209) “…Jefferson was so beautifully human, so eminently vague, so entirely dishonest but not in any meretricious way. Rather it was a passionate form of self delusion that rendered Jefferson as president and as man (not to mention as writer of tangled sentences and lunatic metaphors) confusing even to his admirers. Proclaiming the unalienable rights of man for everyone (excepting slaves, women, Indians and those entirely without property), Jefferson tried to seize the Floridas by force, dreamed of a conquest of Cuba…”. George Clinton referred to him (p. 289) as a “..Frenchified trimmer from that atheist from Virginia… Massa Tom”. His countrymen considered him cowardly, according to Burr reciting his memoirs, as (p. 297) “….like so many bookish men who have never been in battle, Jefferson enjoyed the threat of bloodshed”. Of course, this all from Burr’s account. Once in office (p. 305) “…the public is always relieved to find….once elected the officials do not really want change”. Does this sound familiar in 2016? Burr expounds loquaciously (p. 520) “Although Americans justify their self interest in moral terms, their true interest is never itself moral. Yet, paradoxically, only Americans- a few, that is- ever try to be moral in politics”.

I really, really enjoyed this. The New York riots of that time, the 5 points debauchery of whores, drink, organized crime, fiery abolitionists and Tammany hall was original and colorful. The story of a young journalist intent struggling with his moral duty as a reporter vs the love of his fatherly subject (Burr) worked beautifully as brilliant yet aging octogenarian unlayers his remarkable past and his many peccadillos come to light.

The finish is lovely, as the young reporter watches his idol become ill and fade away, along with his cronies, including the irascible Andrew Jackson, and a few surprises emerge. This was a most pleasurable way to read history. My only complaints is that this publisher (Bantam) produced a rather low-quality volume with numerous typos. But I've been carrying this around for many years, so it is near and dear.

Finally, a friend of mine, upon learning I was reading this, recounted his one story of Gore Vidal. Apparently he was visiting his midwest university as the featured guest. A student, showing up as part of a course obligation, was interrogated rather aggressively by an elderly gentleman regarding his views on the schedule speaker. They had a nice chat and then the emcee introduced the speaker who was... you guessed it... that very same elderly gentleman who scrambled to the podium.

Aaron Burr Jr (1756-1836) is one of the more controversial and interesting of the Founding Fathers. Vice-President of the US (1800-1804) to President Jefferson, killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel (1804) and killed his own political career. He was later indicted, but never convicted, of trying to foment rebellion and treason in 1807 for something known as the Burr Conspiracy.

This complex and oft-infuriating man is the subject of Gore Vidal's excellent historical fiction. Using the vehicle of the dislikable media scumbag, Charles Schuyler, we are introduced to Burr's recounting of his version of events.

From the Revolutionary War to his opinions about the other Founding Fathers, to his misadventures in the Western Territories and his quest for the domination of Mexico, it is always wise to remember that we are reading Aaron Burr's version of events.

That being said, this is an excellent look at the time through the eyes of one of its most interesting characters. Gore's writing style is excellent and the book reads like a great novel. Full of dry wit and a wonderful grasp of the newly forming American nation and all the competing forces that seek to shape its place in the world.

It is refreshing to see that political conflict is part and parcel of American history. It is not something recently discovered, as the media would have you believe. In fact, the political machinations aside, I was struck by one telling tidbit- since the very start of the American nation, the media (or "the Press" at this time) has always played a destabilizing, corrupt, hypocritical, deeply biased and loose with conflating opinions with facts. Good to see some things have never changed and far from lionizing the media, it must be pointed out that they have been a truly awful and destructive force throughout the history of America.

A superb book and well written. Gore's vision is that with the start of the events in this book, the US moved away from founding Republic principles and started on its path towards Empire. Yes, Gore has been bitten by the leftist bug, but he is still a brilliant and witty writer.

A superb historical fiction novel about a most complex man and a very complex nation in its birthing stages. Highly recommended.

Founding father of the USA meet House of Cards.

We always have this preconceived notion in our mind about the founder(s) of a country. Like how they had ideals about how our country should be and how they must not have engaged in any petty politics as it was beneath them. Fact is, politics is dirty. What happens when you get your country? Do you let it be run by people around you just because they might be better rulers/administrators or have better fundamentals? Or do you do whatever is necessary to seize power because deep down inside you wanted that fame and glory and those were the primary reasons you fought for the independence?

Washington was an incompetent general who never carried the day on battlefield. Hamilton and Jefferson did not see eye to eye and both were more or less discarded from politics. Hamilton was killed in a duel with Burr and President Jefferson then falsely implicated Burr in a treason case, tried to limit the powers of independent judiciary and more or less established a Virginia dynasty over early US politics. These are all the nasty details of USA's founding fathers and probably not talked about because of the sanctity associated with them. American public keeps hearing about the ideals and principles of the founding fathers. I have a sense they might not be ideals worth following after all.

This novel reads like a classic English novel making the writing dense which is the reason it is 3 and not 4 stars.

Hi - I DNF this book, I read 80+ pages. I found it difficult to follow, especially in comparison his book Lincoln, which I loved. I decided I would rather spend my time reading a book I am enjoying.

To me, this book does not flow well, seems to jump all over the place and is hard to follow. I had to go back and check (too often) to see who was speaking - was it the 'narrator', 'Burr' or others. In addition, it is not a story that tells all about Burr. It tells stories about a variety of others in this time, i.e. George Washington, General Knox, Henry Clay, Van Buren, which is fine, but didn't meet my expectations. Again, very different than with Lincoln which told a linear story, and mostly about Lincoln.

The thing I did like about this book is the great spread of vocabulary words that Gore uses. I definitely got to stretch my vocab here, even in the first 80 pages. That part I did like.

I may try this book again in the future, but for now... just not working for me.

Too many cheap shots, too little real appreciation for the complexities of the American past.

I am not a fan of US colonial history, but I enjoyed this book. Vidal makes these historical figures very human and doesn't mind taking a jab or two at them. He also made me very sympathetic toward Aaron Burr and less so toward Thomas Jefferson. This is a first in his series of historical fiction focusing on the US that goes up to the 20th century. I enjoy it so much I periodically re-read it and took it with me to Mexico City when I was there doing research.

This is one of Gore Vidal's best historical novels.

Aaron Burr was America's second great traitor, after Benedict Arnold. As Thomas Jefferson's rival, Burr was a prisoner of his own ego. His inability to moderate his over-weening narcissism ruined him when he tried to subvert the new institutions of the the US government to declare himself president of the young country.

He is not a perfect antecedent to Trump. There is a resemblance, but Burr was far more colorful and talented. Thus, Vidal had a lot of material to work with in fictionalizing Burr's life. In contrast, what would one write about a creature like Trump? It is supremely challenging to turn an addiction to television combined with functional illiteracy into a successful novel, unless the novel is meant as tragi-comical satire like Toole’s A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES.

Perhaps, that is a good way to understand Trump. He is the tragi-comic and dumber version of Aaron Burr. Each failed to bring off his own coup.