Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That’s partially because Jobs biography is awfully written and was such a waste of The access the author had.

Woz’s is easy to read.




> That’s partially because Jobs biography is awfully written

What was so awful about it?


Not the parent commenter, but my problem with "Jobs" was not the writing, but that Steve Jobs as a character was very hard to understand, after many chapters in the book. His personality and actions were just so erratic that I felt I was reading a bio about 4 different people named "Steve Jobs".

I don't know if I can blame it on the author though, because the early chapters were great -- it's what got me interested in reading more about Woz in the first place. What's ironic to me is that the "Jobs" biographer (Walter Isaacson) had full access to Jobs even in his last days. Of anyone who wrote about Jobs, Isaacson probably had the most exposure to all the sides of Jobs and might have the truest depiction of Jobs, erratic persona and all. It just wasn't interesting to read.

In contrast, "Bad Blood", the new book about Theranos by John Carreyrou, the WSJ reporter who exposed Theranos, has a thorough and entertaining depiction of Elizabeth Holmes, even though she has refused every of his interview requests. The info about her comes completely from second hand sources. I don't mention Holmes in the context of Jobs to imply that Jobs (for all his warts) was anywhere near the same level of asshole that Holmes seems to be. But Carreyrou frequently mentions Holmes -- not just because she worshipped Jobs -- but because everyone tells Carreyrou how Holmes had the similar superpower of reality-distortion. Reading "Bad Blood" is like reading a book about Jobs and Apple, if Jobs and Apple were a complete scam that never actually created anything.


Interesting. I wonder if that highlights a human flaw, that we prefer a story with a coherent narrative to one that accurately chronicles human complexity and irrationality.


Big fan of Isaacson's Benjamin Franklin biography, but also did not enjoy his Jobs one. The most interesting part of the story was when Jobs returned to Apple and executed perfectly on everything. It seemed that he'd learned some very important lessons and had undergone quite the transformation. The book doesn't hint at what he'd learned; it just recounts things happening really well. It left so many unanswered questions, and didn't even notice they were there to be explored.


> It seemed that he'd learned some very important lessons and had undergone quite the transformation.

"Becoming Steve Jobs" by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli deals with exactly this theme of his personal growth and learning. I got far more out of it than Isaacson's book and would recommend it over Isaacson to anyone interested in reading a Jobs biography.


Same — the Isaacson book doesn’t provide any insight into the man. ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’ does.


It provides no insight, asked Jobs no real questions, and provided very little outside of a quote filled list of what he'd done... which we already knew.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: