John Gruber wrote a review of Isascson’s Steve Jobs biography. I’m so happy that someone did succeed to express some of my frustration (reading the book) in words:
Isaacson, it seems clear, mistrusted Jobs. That’s good. But rather than using that mistrust to push back, to ask insightful questions, he instead simply turned to others.
I think Isaacson viewed Jobs’s RDF as something very much akin to the Jedi mind trick — something that worked against most people, but not those with strong minds. That might even be true. But I think Isaacson was so concerned with himself being “resistant” that he chose to treat much of what Jobs told him as false.
Again, skepticism is good. But rather than do the research to verify Jobs’s version of events, to learn the facts so as to be able to dispute Jobs himself, he simply turned to sources he did trust, like Hertzfeld and Gates.
Isaacson gives us the story of an asshole. But the world is full of assholes. What we need is the story of the one man who spearheaded so many remarkable products and who built an amazing and unique company.
It took me a good while to finish the book because of those specific reasons. I find the book less interesting (and at some extend poorly written) because it lacks so much how Steve Jobs were seeing things.
Also half the book is about how Steve Jobs was an asshole to everyone around him. The subject must certainly be covered to understand how his mood and opinion could change from black to white (sometime the same day, with the same person), but instead of pushing Steve Jobs on those controversial issues, it looks like Isaascon felts he would be trapped by Steve Jobs’ distortion field. Septic about everything he would say, Isaacson would then go the safe route and ask others what they think, making a counter weight effect. The first half of the book is only about this weight and counter weight effect and it gets really exhausting.
While reading I was telling myself “Ok Isac, we get it. He was an asshole, now fucking move on…”
