> His questions, his analysis, it all seemed so pedestrian and boring. I agree to some extent, but I also think this is a commonly heard complaint about books

> His questions, his analysis, it all seemed so pedestrian and boring. I agree to some extent, but I also think this is a commonly heard complaint about books about an insider in a field or art, written by an outsider -- other insiders inevitably see the shortcomings of a generalist's way of describing a specialist. I like the book precisely because it's the view of an outsider, who didn't necessarily understand all the minutiae of his subject or the field, but to some degree that circumstance can confer a kind of universality and accessibility to the end result. There's also the handicap of writing a biography of a living person who has granted special access -- the writer must feel tremendous pressure to avoid saying anything that might end his access. That's always lurking between the lines when reading the biography of a person who was living when the book was written -- it can't compare to the more classic tell-all, "Mommy Dearest" kind of biographies of people no longer among the living. But the latter have their own problems. In the final analysis, good writing is defined by what you leave out, not what you put in. I think Isaacson passes this test.