“Battle of Ink and Ice: A Sensational Story of News Barons, North Pole Explorers, and the Making of Modern Media”: https://tinyurl.com/yu3n73vw

With all this hype about BookTok, I decided to do a deeper dive.

A waste of time. What we’ve got here is women, and a few men, testifying as to their love of a book(s). That’s it, they love it, it’s their favorite. Should you partake? NO! This is not how recommendation works. You recommend something if you think someone else will like it. And believe me, almost all of the recommendations coming my way are substandard.

Which is all to say I’m reluctant to recommend you read “Battle of Ink and Ice.” It’s not that it’s a hard read, it’s just that it takes a while to get hooked and you never get completely riveted. If you want a book that excavates history and will keep you more riveted, try Bill Bryson’s “One Summer: America, 1927”: https://tinyurl.com/ucz96kjm I downloaded it from the library because Gary Dell’Abate recommended it, not expecting to do much more than start, never mind finish, but this ten year old book is a revelation, in its delineation of the history of the time, most of which we’ve forgotten if we ever knew it to begin with. There’s the race to fly across the Atlantic, the complete story of Lindbergh, and politics and Babe Ruth… I wouldn’t put “One Summer” at the top of your list, but like I said above, if history is what you’re looking for, it’s easier to read and soon hooks you, unlike “Battle of Ink and Ice.” But “Battle of Ink and Ice” ultimately has more impact, will deliver more insight, it’s hard to stop thinking about it.

Newspapers were the internet of their day. Starting around the time of the Civil War. It’s astounding how similar they were to what we’ve been living through online the past thirty or so years. There were upstarts, competition, sensationalism, lies… The publishers were selling papers, truth was secondary to getting people to cough up their dough. We’re still in this era in social media. X is full of b.s., and controlled by the #1 b.s.’er himself, Elon Musk. Mark Zuckerberg seems to lack almost all humanity. And there were press titans in the past, like the owner of the “Herald” and his son, who ruled by whim.

And ultimately you got Pulitzer and Hearst and there was a lot of money, but not a whole hell of a lot of trustworthiness.

Now this newspaper story is told via the race to reach the North Pole. Both Cook and Peary claimed the achievement. Was one of them lying?

Well, papers had invested in polar exploration, so were they inherently biased?

But the essence is… Cook was likable, and said he got there first, and as a result he got a hero’s welcome. A congratulatory sail around Manhattan, a parade on the island and then a book tour across the nation. He got rich. Peary was bitter, kept on saying Cook was a loser who hadn’t made it. Peary was exposed as someone who was in it for the glory only, screw scientific achievement, he needed to get there first.

But when the Danes ultimately investigated Cook’s documentation, months later, they laughed, they said there was no way he made it to the Pole.

But it was too late for Peary. The parade, the speaking engagements…the public thought he was a sore loser, full of sour grapes, they couldn’t warm up to him, even after Cook was deemed a liar. Even crazier, some people continued to defend Cook, because of likability, if nothing else.

Sound like today?

Conventional wisdom can be plain wrong. And media can shape people’s opinions. And character and presentation count more than the truth sometimes.

By time I came along, papers were respectable. Yellow journalism was mostly in the rearview mirror. Papers had been consolidated and were seen as authoritative. We were told in school not to trust everything we read, but the papers were relatively trustworthy.

And then came the internet. Which pushed the papers aside. It’s funny to see all this hogwash about saving newspapers. They’re history, the model is gone. To try and prop them up is like trying to prop up anything that’s been superseded by the present, a fool’s errand, a waste of money. The “New York Times” triumphs because not only does it sell news, authoritatively, as the last man standing, but because it also sells games, cooking, sports and consumer advice…all these verticals as subscriptions.

As for the failing “New York Times”… It was failing, almost dead, and then Adolph Ochs purchased it and resuscitated it. Ochs was a businessman, not a journalist. He left that to others. Hired good people and mostly didn’t meddle. And decided to pursue an untracked vertical, one wherein you paid more for financial news, which others were ignoring, and facts as opposed to opinion. The other papers specialized in opinion, the “Times” let you make up your own mind. The “Times” got respect, never mind purchases, from the upscale, the movers and shakers, and it was on its way. The “Times” questioned the truth and didn’t get caught up in petty tit for tat. And those that played by the old rules were ultimately also-rans, that had to merge to survive, if they did at all.

It’s just astounding that history is repeating itself. That the medium is different, but the story with the internet is the same. A new paradigm comes along, the entire populace is excited about it, and it draws in people who are looking to get rich…scammers, spammers, those who see an opportunity, who care not a whit about getting it right, the public at large, trust, they just want to sell.

Like not only Elon Musk, but Mark Zuckerberg. And then the Chinese come along and do it better than either of them, with TikTok, just like the “Times.”

It’s all there.

“Battle of Ink and Ice” got great reviews. It’s not unknown. Not some book from a university press that is poorly written and will ultimately go nowhere. It’s not obscure. And if you read it it will deliver insight, will get your brain cranking.

“Battle of Ink and Ice” does not read like a textbook, it’s not a chore, but if you want something that will deliver absolutely…

Ultimately, the Ann Patchett book “Tom Lake” is overrated. It’s not that it’s bad, it’s highly readable, but it’s ultimately slight in meaning, minor. But the fact that it’s so lauded and talked about just demonstrates how hard it is to write something great.

I’d say to read Dennis Lehane’s “Small Mercies” before. It’s a genre book, by the guy who wrote “Mystic River.” This is not my interest, I’d never read a Lehane book before, but a friend I trust recommended it and…it’s not quite riveting, but it’s close. And unlike “Tom Lake”…it does have a deeper meaning, it does apply to life in general, it’s not solely about plot. Then again, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that.

The new Winslow book is his worst ever, a total disappointment. Don’t even bother.

I’m having a hard time delivering a slam dunk, at least one I haven’t written about previously. And unlike the BookTokkers I’m not going to salivate over Colleen Hoover. Once again, the wisdom of the crowd is not always right. Just because you’re reading that does not mean you can pat yourself on the back. There’s a whole hell of a lot of streaming TV that’s better than so many books.

My point being is if you read one book a year, don’t start with “Battle of Ink and Ice.” But if you’re the kind of person who likes history, mostly unknown or unamplified history, who likes a book removed from today but has lessons for today…

There’s a whole hell of a lot of information out there that will enrich your life, that will give you a leg up. Too much conversation is worthless, bloviators who know nothing and jockeying for position by losers. If you want to rise above, you can, in your own little home, just by informing yourself via media…reading, streaming TV… You don’t need to brag about reading “Battle of Ink and Ice,” but if you do complete it you’ll have perspective I certainly didn’t have prior to reading it. And this perspective now informs my view of today’s landscape. I read the book for fun, but it paid unforeseen dividends.

You’re on your own.