What do you think?
Rate this book
Fight of the Century: Writers Reflect on 100 Years of Landmark ACLU Cases
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Best History & Biography (2020)A unique collaboration between the American Civil Liberties Union and authors Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman, Fight of the Century features original essays by the most influential writers at work today—including Jennifer Egan, Neil Gaiman, Marlon James, Viet Thanh Nguyen, Salman Rushdie, Jesmyn Ward, and more—each writing about a landmark ACLU case, published in conjunction with the 100th anniversary of the organization.
The American Civil Liberties Union began as a small group of idealists and visionaries, including Helen Keller and Jane Addams. A century after its founding, the ACLU remains the nation’s premier defender of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
In collaboration with the ACLU, prize-winning authors Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman have curated an anthology of essays about landmark cases in the ACLU’s 100-year history. In Fight of the Century, bestselling and award-winning authors present unique literary takes on historic decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, the Scopes trial, Roe v. Wade, and more. Contributors include Geraldine Brooks, Michael Cunningham, Jennifer Egan, Dave Eggers, Louise Erdrich, Neil Gaiman, Lauren Groff, Marlon James, Viet Thanh Nguyen, Morgan Parker, Ann Patchett, Salman Rushdie, George Saunders, Elizabeth Strout, Jesmyn Ward, Meg Wolitzer, and more.
Fight of the Century shows how throughout American history, pivotal legal battles, fought primarily by underdogs and their lawyers, have advanced civil rights and social justice. The ACLU has been integral in this process. The essays range from personal memoir to narrative history, each shedding light on the work of one remarkable organization as it shaped a country.
Chabon and Waldman are donating their advance to the ACLU and the contributors are forgoing payment.
The American Civil Liberties Union began as a small group of idealists and visionaries, including Helen Keller and Jane Addams. A century after its founding, the ACLU remains the nation’s premier defender of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
In collaboration with the ACLU, prize-winning authors Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman have curated an anthology of essays about landmark cases in the ACLU’s 100-year history. In Fight of the Century, bestselling and award-winning authors present unique literary takes on historic decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, the Scopes trial, Roe v. Wade, and more. Contributors include Geraldine Brooks, Michael Cunningham, Jennifer Egan, Dave Eggers, Louise Erdrich, Neil Gaiman, Lauren Groff, Marlon James, Viet Thanh Nguyen, Morgan Parker, Ann Patchett, Salman Rushdie, George Saunders, Elizabeth Strout, Jesmyn Ward, Meg Wolitzer, and more.
Fight of the Century shows how throughout American history, pivotal legal battles, fought primarily by underdogs and their lawyers, have advanced civil rights and social justice. The ACLU has been integral in this process. The essays range from personal memoir to narrative history, each shedding light on the work of one remarkable organization as it shaped a country.
Chabon and Waldman are donating their advance to the ACLU and the contributors are forgoing payment.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published January 21, 2020
About the author
Michael Chabon
69 books8,382 followersMichael Chabon (b. 1963) is an acclaimed and bestselling author whose works include the Pulitzer Prize–winning novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (2000). Chabon achieved literary fame at age twenty-four with his first novel, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh (1988), which was a major critical and commercial success. He then published Wonder Boys (1995), another bestseller, which was made into a film starring Michael Douglas. One of America’s most distinctive voices, Chabon has been called “a magical prose stylist” by the New York Times Book Review, and is known for his lively writing, nostalgia for bygone modes of storytelling, and deep empathy for the human predicament.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 reviews
August 28, 2022
Fight of the Century is a collection of essays by writers reflecting on 100 years of landmark ACLU cases. Prior to reading this, I certainly knew of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) but didn’t realize how many of these landmark cases the organization was involved in, working to defend constitutional rights and freedoms. It’s baffling that many of these had to be argued at all!
“In the face of these realities, I find solace in the efforts of the ACLU and its lawyers to demand dignity and the protection of the Constitution on behalf of all of us, including--especially-those least likely to be deemed worthy of it.”
I found some cases and essays in Fight of the Century more interesting than others, but regardless, this collection is informative and a cool collaboration among many well-known authors.
“In the face of these realities, I find solace in the efforts of the ACLU and its lawyers to demand dignity and the protection of the Constitution on behalf of all of us, including--especially-those least likely to be deemed worthy of it.”
I found some cases and essays in Fight of the Century more interesting than others, but regardless, this collection is informative and a cool collaboration among many well-known authors.
December 12, 2019
This book is a conglomeration of essays by generally famous and excellent writers and artists. Each essay writer takes on one of the ACLU’s most famous cases and describes the case and it’s effects sometimes in a macro level and other times micro and personal. Often the shorts are quite moving and beautiful. This is a great read.
February 22, 2020
Is it too early in the year to say that if you buy one book this year, it should be this one? Yes, I know Mantel’s conclusion is coming out next month, but you should really consider this one.
I first read about in the NYT Book Review. That day, I went out and brought it, mostly because of Marlon James and Victor LaValle (the reviewer really liked those essays). Then I pulled the book down from the shelf and so who else is it in. Jacqueline Woodson. Geraldine Brooks. Neil Gaiman. Salman Rushdie. George Saunders. Jesmyn Ward.
The book is a collection of essays celebrating the ACLU and famous cases. And there really isn’t a bad essay in the bunch. Each author takes a case and the essay is mediation on it. Perhaps the most touching is Woodson’s essay on the Scottsboro Boys. The cases go up to the present day, and the essays are, understandably political. The politics run from the border wall to free speech to the taking of Native American children.
The best essay in the collection is the one by Morgan Parker, which strangely was not mentioned in the NYT Review. I haven’t read Parker before. His essay is the one you want everyone to read. You want to make copies and hand them out on the street. Honesty, read it. It’s just so bloody powerful.
I first read about in the NYT Book Review. That day, I went out and brought it, mostly because of Marlon James and Victor LaValle (the reviewer really liked those essays). Then I pulled the book down from the shelf and so who else is it in. Jacqueline Woodson. Geraldine Brooks. Neil Gaiman. Salman Rushdie. George Saunders. Jesmyn Ward.
The book is a collection of essays celebrating the ACLU and famous cases. And there really isn’t a bad essay in the bunch. Each author takes a case and the essay is mediation on it. Perhaps the most touching is Woodson’s essay on the Scottsboro Boys. The cases go up to the present day, and the essays are, understandably political. The politics run from the border wall to free speech to the taking of Native American children.
The best essay in the collection is the one by Morgan Parker, which strangely was not mentioned in the NYT Review. I haven’t read Parker before. His essay is the one you want everyone to read. You want to make copies and hand them out on the street. Honesty, read it. It’s just so bloody powerful.
June 9, 2020
If you were to take a moment and consider what life would be like in the United States had 100 years ago the founders of the ACLU not realized the necessity for a legal organization to protect our civil liberties, you might have shivers sent down your spine. In "Fight of the Century" a litany of heavyweight writers, scholars, and lawyers recount a small fraction of the countless cases the ACLU has used over the last century to protect our rights and liberties as Americans and as human beings.
Each essay in this collection begins with a brief case summary and is paired with an essay. Some essays recount personal connections with the cases, others tell the histories of the cases, and others still use the cases as springboards to discuss the ways in which we still face social problems today. Despite the form the essays take, though, it is undeniable that whether fighting for our right to read "Ulysses," our right to not be forced to learn about "intelligent design," the rights of trans people not to be fired, and the right of Native Americans not to have their children taken away, the ACLU has been there to fight.
Unfortunately the book clearly lacked a fact checker: historical inaccuracies were present (Norma McCorvey - the plaintiff in Roe - did not convert to Catholicism, she became a born-again evangelical) and legal inaccuracies (a case didn't not have a jury because it was a civil case; it didn't have a jury because questions of Constitutional law are decided by judges.)
But in spite of these few errors, this book stands as a testament to the fights fought, the fights won, the fights lost, and the fights to come. Read this book, don't forget, and keep fighting on.
Each essay in this collection begins with a brief case summary and is paired with an essay. Some essays recount personal connections with the cases, others tell the histories of the cases, and others still use the cases as springboards to discuss the ways in which we still face social problems today. Despite the form the essays take, though, it is undeniable that whether fighting for our right to read "Ulysses," our right to not be forced to learn about "intelligent design," the rights of trans people not to be fired, and the right of Native Americans not to have their children taken away, the ACLU has been there to fight.
Unfortunately the book clearly lacked a fact checker: historical inaccuracies were present (Norma McCorvey - the plaintiff in Roe - did not convert to Catholicism, she became a born-again evangelical) and legal inaccuracies (a case didn't not have a jury because it was a civil case; it didn't have a jury because questions of Constitutional law are decided by judges.)
But in spite of these few errors, this book stands as a testament to the fights fought, the fights won, the fights lost, and the fights to come. Read this book, don't forget, and keep fighting on.
March 21, 2020
Some of these "reflections" are about the cases themselves, and others are about the societal conditions that gave rise to them, with equal parts constitutional analysis and passionate rant. Neil Gaiman's and George Saunders' essays are reasonably even-handed. The ones about civil rights are the most heated, and justifiably so. But the best is the one that argues against the ACLU's position in Citizens' United. In what is probably their least celebrated case, the ACLU helped to establish as law the rights of corporations and labor unions to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political candidates in the guise of "free speech." In his essay, Scott Turow rails against the Supreme Court's decision and against the ACLU's participation in Citizens United, and the ACLU ends up looking like a rag doll run over in the rain. But the mere fact that Turow's diatribe is included here says something about the ACLU. Honey Badger don't care, and neither does the ACLU. The only thing the ACLU cares about is liberty. They have no values, per se. They will defend anyone, from the defenseless immigrant to the most ardent racist to the fictitious personal entity called a "corporation," if liberty is at stake. They're brilliant when they're right and they're infuriating when they're wrong, but at least they're brutually consistent.
So thank you, ACLU, for including Turow's essay, and for all your dark arts. But dammit, money is still not "speech."
So thank you, ACLU, for including Turow's essay, and for all your dark arts. But dammit, money is still not "speech."
March 11, 2020
In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the American Civil Liberties Union, a large cross section of the finest writers alive have written essays, each about one landmark case. Chabon and his co-editor, Ayelet Waldman, contributed their advance to the organization, and all of the contributing authors did so free of charge. As for this reviewer, I’d have been interested in an ACLU publication, even if I hadn’t heard of the writers involved; and I’d have been interested in anything written by Chabon, even if the story or topic wasn’t in my lane. As it is, I count myself beyond lucky to have scored a review copy courtesy of Net Galley and Simon and Schuster. It’s for sale now.
This is the sort of book that invites skipping around, either according to subject, or according to the authors you love best. Because of this, I recommend buying it in paper rather than digitally, because flipping around out of order in digital format is a pain in the butt. Also, this is the sort of classical reference material that you’d want on your shelf. In fact, I want a physical copy myself.
I haven’t read all of the entries, but I’ve read enough of them to recommend it to you. The cases discussed are meaty and interesting, and they aren’t the standard fodder that shows up in every undergraduate course on Constitutional law. Each entry is succinct, and the writers refrain from self-promotion. The entries I appreciate most so far are by Jesmyn Ward, who discusses the use of anti-loitering laws to transform free Black boys and men into slave laborers; Timothy Egan, who details a 1962 decision regarding the right to receive Communist literature in the U.S. mail; and Louse Erdrich, who discusses digital snooping and surveillance used against the Dakota Pipeline protesters in 2016. I know there are many more I want to read, but I am posting this now so that you can get a copy while it’s in the stores.
Here’s your chance. You can get an outstanding addition to your home library while contributing to a worthwhile organization whose work is more crucial now than ever. Highly recommended.
This is the sort of book that invites skipping around, either according to subject, or according to the authors you love best. Because of this, I recommend buying it in paper rather than digitally, because flipping around out of order in digital format is a pain in the butt. Also, this is the sort of classical reference material that you’d want on your shelf. In fact, I want a physical copy myself.
I haven’t read all of the entries, but I’ve read enough of them to recommend it to you. The cases discussed are meaty and interesting, and they aren’t the standard fodder that shows up in every undergraduate course on Constitutional law. Each entry is succinct, and the writers refrain from self-promotion. The entries I appreciate most so far are by Jesmyn Ward, who discusses the use of anti-loitering laws to transform free Black boys and men into slave laborers; Timothy Egan, who details a 1962 decision regarding the right to receive Communist literature in the U.S. mail; and Louse Erdrich, who discusses digital snooping and surveillance used against the Dakota Pipeline protesters in 2016. I know there are many more I want to read, but I am posting this now so that you can get a copy while it’s in the stores.
Here’s your chance. You can get an outstanding addition to your home library while contributing to a worthwhile organization whose work is more crucial now than ever. Highly recommended.
April 16, 2020
This book has multi personality disorder. Every chapter is written by a different position/person. Every chapter is read by somebody else. Some are told in first person, other in 3rd. Some are serious expirations into the case, others are simply people telling personal anecdotes. This creates a disjointed feel in the book.
Some of the stories I really liked, but some were disapointing.
I don't know how much of Ulysseys v US is true, but I hope it is. Same with the closing argument for Brandenburg v Ohio.
Reno v ACLU And Ashcroft v ACLU was possibly my favorite story, it was also the most serious in tone... What is the relationship between freedom of speech when measured against responsibility to protect minors? Excellent discussion
Some of the stories I really liked, but some were disapointing.
I don't know how much of Ulysseys v US is true, but I hope it is. Same with the closing argument for Brandenburg v Ohio.
Reno v ACLU And Ashcroft v ACLU was possibly my favorite story, it was also the most serious in tone... What is the relationship between freedom of speech when measured against responsibility to protect minors? Excellent discussion
December 31, 2019
This is a book I'll be coming back to again and again, both for my own reading and for use in courses I teach. It covers a huge range of civil rights cases, presenting them clearly and offering succinct, engaging reflections on them. This is the kind of writing, involving both research and personal reflection, that I encourage my students to do. If things go as I plan, I will use this as a class text for the first time next winter.
February 25, 2020
RATING: 3.5 STARS (7/10)
This was very interesting indeed. A bunch of essays around different law cases where the ACLU has taken part. I enjoyed the majority of them but it's true that a few were too heavy on the legal technicalities and I felt they weren't "friendly" to those who, like me, are not familiar with legal language. However, I do recommend it. I learnt a lot.
This was very interesting indeed. A bunch of essays around different law cases where the ACLU has taken part. I enjoyed the majority of them but it's true that a few were too heavy on the legal technicalities and I felt they weren't "friendly" to those who, like me, are not familiar with legal language. However, I do recommend it. I learnt a lot.
February 20, 2021
Fascinating book, greatest hits author list. I loved that there wasn’t a format they were given to stay within, and how each chapter had a distinct voice. I didn’t listen to the audiobook, but know it is recommended... especially since Samuel L Jackson narrates one of the most interesting cases.
It is interesting to see how expansive the 14th amendment is applied. After reading several cases about it went and looked at the actual text of it again. I have a lot of interest in this one in particular because it directly relates to the work I do: putting brackets on equity and justice... I’m curious to see how it’s application evolves as the ACLU spends more time and effort on the topic of environmental justice within civil rights work.
It is interesting to see how expansive the 14th amendment is applied. After reading several cases about it went and looked at the actual text of it again. I have a lot of interest in this one in particular because it directly relates to the work I do: putting brackets on equity and justice... I’m curious to see how it’s application evolves as the ACLU spends more time and effort on the topic of environmental justice within civil rights work.
February 28, 2020
The list of authors that contributed to this essay collection is amazing!
The book celebrates 100 years of ACLU case law. Each essay is inspired by a landmark US case but there are so many wide ranging perspectives. Some authors use the case to tell anecdotes from their own life others have used it to express their views on a topic.
I love that in putting this collection together essays were included that greatly critique some of the positions the ACLU have taken. This is a really well rounded collection and I recommend it to everyone!
I have too many favourite essays to name! I thought I would slip in and out of this book reading an essay at a time but I was engrossed and always excited to pick this book up.
The list of authors that contributed to this essay collection is amazing!
The book celebrates 100 years of ACLU case law. Each essay is inspired by a landmark US case but there are so many wide ranging perspectives. Some authors use the case to tell anecdotes from their own life others have used it to express their views on a topic.
I love that in putting this collection together essays were included that greatly critique some of the positions the ACLU have taken. This is a really well rounded collection and I recommend it to everyone!
I have too many favourite essays to name! I thought I would slip in and out of this book reading an essay at a time but I was engrossed and always excited to pick this book up.
December 8, 2019
Received as an ARC from the publisher. Started 11-28-19; finished 12-7-19. Excellent history of the most influential ACLU cases, as well as a history of the last 100 years of the United States. As a reference book, it's a great companion piece to How to Read the Constitution and Why by Kim Wehle. Both help you to understand our country, its good points and its flaws---and its efforts to live up to its ideals--even if it has to be forced by legal action. The stories behind these cases are truly fascinating. Some seem so obvious now, but they certainly weren't obvious in their time. Also points up the importance of intelligent, empathetic and future-thinking judges.
April 1, 2020
This is really strong collection. I loved hearing how each author interpreted their case. I also loved how there were different readers for each essay on the audiobook. It’s powerful. It went in slightly too long for me and some essays were medium. But I’m glad I read this book.
February 7, 2020
As a card-carrying ACLU member whose favorite part of AP Gov in high school was learning about SCOTUS cases, I think it was a foregone conclusion that I was going to like this book.
40 essays from 40 authors ranging from Neil Gaiman to Jesmyn Ward. Each author picks one SCOTUS case that: has somehow impacted them; relates to something that has happened in their lives; or just a case the writer feels extremely strongly about. While most of the essays are filled with adulation for the ACLU's role in the cases, there are a few instances were the ACLU or certain branches of the ACLU are not painted in a positive light. I commend the editors for adding those essays into the book. I have to say it's probably because I whole-heartedly agree with Scott Turow's impassioned essay full of frustration and anger about the ACLU's stance regarding Citizen's United (which really goes all the way back to Buckley v. Valeo).
With so many essays in the collection, there are obviously ones that are more captivating and/or interesting than others. But at no time did I ever get bored listening, in fact, Hammond lucked out and got longer walks so I could listen longer. While many cases discussed are "big cases" that everyone probably knows (ie: Roe v. Wade, Korematsu v. United States) there are also some cases that people might not know the names, and there are some that people might not know in general. Regardless, every essay starts with a brief summary of the case itself. Some go into a lot of detail about the case in the essay while others stay focused on an aspect of the writer's life or the impact on society as a whole. I don't think anyone who reads or listens to this book needs to know the cases prior to this book.
The audiobook is a treat in itself, each essay has a different narrator and the list includes the likes of Samuel L. Jackson and Lucy Liu. It's a pretty stellar voice cast. Some of the authors, such as Michael Chabon and Neil Gaiman opt to read their own essays and they're good as well.
All in all, I enjoyed listening to the book. The audiobook was well produced and the essays were all interesting and caught my interest. I do think that people who are more left-leaning would enjoy this book a lot more.
40 essays from 40 authors ranging from Neil Gaiman to Jesmyn Ward. Each author picks one SCOTUS case that: has somehow impacted them; relates to something that has happened in their lives; or just a case the writer feels extremely strongly about. While most of the essays are filled with adulation for the ACLU's role in the cases, there are a few instances were the ACLU or certain branches of the ACLU are not painted in a positive light. I commend the editors for adding those essays into the book. I have to say it's probably because I whole-heartedly agree with Scott Turow's impassioned essay full of frustration and anger about the ACLU's stance regarding Citizen's United (which really goes all the way back to Buckley v. Valeo).
With so many essays in the collection, there are obviously ones that are more captivating and/or interesting than others. But at no time did I ever get bored listening, in fact, Hammond lucked out and got longer walks so I could listen longer. While many cases discussed are "big cases" that everyone probably knows (ie: Roe v. Wade, Korematsu v. United States) there are also some cases that people might not know the names, and there are some that people might not know in general. Regardless, every essay starts with a brief summary of the case itself. Some go into a lot of detail about the case in the essay while others stay focused on an aspect of the writer's life or the impact on society as a whole. I don't think anyone who reads or listens to this book needs to know the cases prior to this book.
The audiobook is a treat in itself, each essay has a different narrator and the list includes the likes of Samuel L. Jackson and Lucy Liu. It's a pretty stellar voice cast. Some of the authors, such as Michael Chabon and Neil Gaiman opt to read their own essays and they're good as well.
All in all, I enjoyed listening to the book. The audiobook was well produced and the essays were all interesting and caught my interest. I do think that people who are more left-leaning would enjoy this book a lot more.
June 8, 2020
A testament to free speech and how the ACLU has tried their best to uphold American liberties for the least of these. All of the essays are illuminating and the style, diverse. I appreciated how FOTC demonstrated that certain cases could not exist without previous fights having been won. The needle of progress moves slowly but the goal is always the same. That all are equally recognized and has equal access to the liberties the constitution is meant to provide them. Because of this egalitarian vision, the ACLU has at times fought for some controversial cases that may feel like an assault on democracy such as Buckley v. Valeo on putting limits to individual contributions of an election campaign. Nonetheless, ACLU has often stood as needed representation for those who our laws, systems, and governments have pushed to the margins, in order to shape a more perfect union.
December 10, 2020
as a constitutional law nerd and someone who gets emotional reading the holdings of many of the substantive due process cases, this collection was obviously right up my alley. almost all of my faves are here - Brown, Loving, Tinker, Miranda, Roe, Windsor - and the audiobook format, where a whole host of famous actors and writers lend their voices to the narration, is so good.
Brad Whitford/Josh Lyman excoriating the campaign finance decisions has got to be one of my love languages. that, and Moses Sumney's essay for Zadvydas v. Davis was pure fire.
Brad Whitford/Josh Lyman excoriating the campaign finance decisions has got to be one of my love languages. that, and Moses Sumney's essay for Zadvydas v. Davis was pure fire.
July 11, 2020
This collection of essays celebrating 100 years of the ACLU’s tireless work defending and expanding the rights of vulnerable and marginalized people is a real gem.
I wasn’t sure how to approach reading Fight of the Century at first. It includes essays by some of my favorite living writers - Marlon James, Louise Erdrich, Jesmyn Ward, Michael Chabon - so the temptation was to head straight to their contributions. I decided against this, though, in favor of reading the book from start to finish rather than jumping around through its pages.
Some contributors offer straightforward reportage of the cases they have chosen to write about, while others take a more personal and reflective approach. As you would expect from a line-up of some of the 21st century’s finest wordsmiths, there is a great deal of truly beautiful and powerful writing here. In particular, I was deeply moved by Jacqueline Woodson’s reflections on the Scottsboro Boys, Brit Bennett’s stunning essay on dissent, patriotism and Colin Kaepernick, and Anthony Doerr’s call for compassion and understanding.
Ann Patchett’s final sentences seem to me to sum up perfectly why the ACLU is so important. “We must work to create a society with liberty and justice for all,” she writes. “We will fail and fail and fail at this goal. Our failure is the history of the world. But our humanity is in the fact that we never cease to try.”
I wasn’t sure how to approach reading Fight of the Century at first. It includes essays by some of my favorite living writers - Marlon James, Louise Erdrich, Jesmyn Ward, Michael Chabon - so the temptation was to head straight to their contributions. I decided against this, though, in favor of reading the book from start to finish rather than jumping around through its pages.
Some contributors offer straightforward reportage of the cases they have chosen to write about, while others take a more personal and reflective approach. As you would expect from a line-up of some of the 21st century’s finest wordsmiths, there is a great deal of truly beautiful and powerful writing here. In particular, I was deeply moved by Jacqueline Woodson’s reflections on the Scottsboro Boys, Brit Bennett’s stunning essay on dissent, patriotism and Colin Kaepernick, and Anthony Doerr’s call for compassion and understanding.
Ann Patchett’s final sentences seem to me to sum up perfectly why the ACLU is so important. “We must work to create a society with liberty and justice for all,” she writes. “We will fail and fail and fail at this goal. Our failure is the history of the world. But our humanity is in the fact that we never cease to try.”
March 9, 2020
I listened to this via Audible. It was not set up the way I thought it would be, but was okay with that. It is worth a listen/read to remember all of the things the ACLU has done to try and ensure our rights as Americans are held firm.
June 21, 2020
Good audiobook.
February 4, 2023
A fascinating collection of essays by a pretty damn amazing collection of authors. Some of the essays are personal, all of them are moving, thought-provoking, well written. Highly recommend.
February 21, 2020
With all-star readers and brilliant writers, this collection is tremendously compelling. Some of these essays are a retelling of the case, reflecting on the history and what has come after the landmark ruling. Some are more personal. Yaa Gyasi brings us from her high school to the stars in "Rocket City". Michael Cunningham takes us with him into a parade that is protest, fight, and free assembly. On the less personal side of things, I respected Johnathan Lethem's perspective on profanity in "Disturbing the War" a great deal.
Whether personal, reflective, or profane, this collection did a beautiful job of matching stories to readers. John Cho, Lucy Liu, Bradley Whitford, and other extremely well chosen actors read whenever the author of the story didn't. My personal favorite was Sir Patrick Stewart reading sarcastic Salaman Rushdie, but everyone was great.
I highly recommend this book to all readers. Spring for the audio version if you like that sort of thing.
Whether personal, reflective, or profane, this collection did a beautiful job of matching stories to readers. John Cho, Lucy Liu, Bradley Whitford, and other extremely well chosen actors read whenever the author of the story didn't. My personal favorite was Sir Patrick Stewart reading sarcastic Salaman Rushdie, but everyone was great.
I highly recommend this book to all readers. Spring for the audio version if you like that sort of thing.
March 5, 2022
Highly recommend. A concise, non-legalese description of landmark cases involving ACLU. Current authors reflect on each case presented to add perspective.
February 9, 2020
What drew me to Fight of the Century edited by Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman was prominent author names. Authors with a legal background, or who had written about topics related to the case, wrote better essays. I read all the essays and averaged my ratings for each contribution to come up with the rating for the entire anthology.
My goal for essays in Fight of the Century was to learn more about the issues involved in the case, its participants or its impact. The essays I favored were the ones that I considered the most eye-opening. Other readers may be better informed about a particular issue than I am. The reverse may also be true. There could be readers who are less informed than I am about the subjects of an essay that I considered a re-hash of familiar points. These readers will probably have other choices for the best contributions to this anthology.
Scott Turow's contribution to Fight of the Century, "Spending Money Isn't Speech", astonished me because I hadn't known that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) actually supported what I, and many others, consider to be among the most harmful Supreme Court decisions of the first decade of the 21st century. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) has made it nearly impossible to legislate against the interests of powerful corporations and has led to the current situation in the United States in which democracy is in jeopardy.
Dave Eggers' essay is "Legal Counsel at the Moment Most Crucial" which was about Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), a case which allowed suspects to have a lawyer present when they are interrogated by police. Readers who are interested in justice reform will find it as important as I did.
The reason why I am calling attention to "Loving", Aleksandr Hemon's essay on Loving v. Virginia (1967), is because of Hemon's perspective on the case. Many readers might wonder what someone who was born in Sarajevo could bring to discussion of a Supreme court ruling that declared racist laws against miscegenation unconstitutional. How is Hemon's experience relevant? The attitude in Sarajevo toward marriages in which the partners were from two different ethnic groups changed radically as a result of the tragic civil war that took place in Bosnia. Hemon discusses his feelings about this issue in the context of the social upheaval in his country of origin. He also mentions his own twelve year marriage to an African American woman. I felt that the way Hemon addressed Loving v. Virginia was moving and highly appropriate.
This was a provocative anthology. A number of the court cases dissected in this volume continue to be subjects of controversy that divide American society. I predict that Fight of the Century will be regarded as a valuable reference book to be cited in the ongoing debates that are central to my nation's politics.
For my complete review see https://shomeretmasked.blogspot.com/2...
My goal for essays in Fight of the Century was to learn more about the issues involved in the case, its participants or its impact. The essays I favored were the ones that I considered the most eye-opening. Other readers may be better informed about a particular issue than I am. The reverse may also be true. There could be readers who are less informed than I am about the subjects of an essay that I considered a re-hash of familiar points. These readers will probably have other choices for the best contributions to this anthology.
Scott Turow's contribution to Fight of the Century, "Spending Money Isn't Speech", astonished me because I hadn't known that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) actually supported what I, and many others, consider to be among the most harmful Supreme Court decisions of the first decade of the 21st century. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) has made it nearly impossible to legislate against the interests of powerful corporations and has led to the current situation in the United States in which democracy is in jeopardy.
Dave Eggers' essay is "Legal Counsel at the Moment Most Crucial" which was about Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), a case which allowed suspects to have a lawyer present when they are interrogated by police. Readers who are interested in justice reform will find it as important as I did.
The reason why I am calling attention to "Loving", Aleksandr Hemon's essay on Loving v. Virginia (1967), is because of Hemon's perspective on the case. Many readers might wonder what someone who was born in Sarajevo could bring to discussion of a Supreme court ruling that declared racist laws against miscegenation unconstitutional. How is Hemon's experience relevant? The attitude in Sarajevo toward marriages in which the partners were from two different ethnic groups changed radically as a result of the tragic civil war that took place in Bosnia. Hemon discusses his feelings about this issue in the context of the social upheaval in his country of origin. He also mentions his own twelve year marriage to an African American woman. I felt that the way Hemon addressed Loving v. Virginia was moving and highly appropriate.
This was a provocative anthology. A number of the court cases dissected in this volume continue to be subjects of controversy that divide American society. I predict that Fight of the Century will be regarded as a valuable reference book to be cited in the ongoing debates that are central to my nation's politics.
For my complete review see https://shomeretmasked.blogspot.com/2...
May 2, 2020
Would recommend
Thank you to Avid Reader Press for my free copy!
I am a terrible student of history, and I owe it to books like Fight of Century to teach me in sneaky ways. Some essays are get into the legal weeds of these landmark cases, and others are deeply personal. They come together to hammer home the point: Supreme Court decisions are not lofty, academic exercises, and their outcomes have huge impact on real people. Failing to be informed about the mechanics of the process or the milestone decisions that inform judicial decisions is not an option any more. Reading this book reminded me of reading Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in that I realized just how little I knew. I took over 2 months to make my way through this collection, and I'm glad I took my time. I would recommend it to everyone, especially history buffs and people interested or connected with the legal profession, and readers who would like to diversify their reading lives. The diversity of contributors here is excellent, and exploring the works of the writers would only serve you well.
---
"Scottsboro, USA: A Brief History" by Jacqueline Woodson
How do we begin to tell this country's story without turning our own selves inside out? (10)
"The Dirtiest, Most Indecent, Obscene Thing Ever Written" by Michael Chabon
... there was no other way to do it; to find out if speech was protected or not, one was obliged, first of all, to speak. (17)
"Rocket City" by Yaa Gyasi
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one that we are unwilling to postpone, and one that we intend to win." (51, John F. Kennedy)
"Loving" by Aleksandar Hemon
... laws can and must change to reflect the indelible realities of human life and life. (99)
"Secrets and Lies" by Salman Rushdie
... I know that the first step toward authoritarianism is always the destruction of people's belief that journalism is, broadly speaking, pursuing and telling the truth. (136)
"Bob Jones Builds a Wall" by Morgan Parker
Words are always blooming with possibility. (171)
"Stateside Statelessness" by Moses Sumney
We get our sense of self from a sense of home. We are taught to root our identities in feelings of belonging and community. We are programmed, across customs, to define ourselves by our origins first and our preferences second. But who are you if you can't be identified? (219-220)
"You've Given Me a Lot to Think About" by Charlie Jane Anders
I'm not here to give you a lot to think about. My body is not statement, or an inconvenience, or a threat to anyone's security. ... When some bodies are illegal, when people are forced to choose either having basic rights or being their authentic selves, then everybody is diminished. (267)
Thank you to Avid Reader Press for my free copy!
I am a terrible student of history, and I owe it to books like Fight of Century to teach me in sneaky ways. Some essays are get into the legal weeds of these landmark cases, and others are deeply personal. They come together to hammer home the point: Supreme Court decisions are not lofty, academic exercises, and their outcomes have huge impact on real people. Failing to be informed about the mechanics of the process or the milestone decisions that inform judicial decisions is not an option any more. Reading this book reminded me of reading Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in that I realized just how little I knew. I took over 2 months to make my way through this collection, and I'm glad I took my time. I would recommend it to everyone, especially history buffs and people interested or connected with the legal profession, and readers who would like to diversify their reading lives. The diversity of contributors here is excellent, and exploring the works of the writers would only serve you well.
---
"Scottsboro, USA: A Brief History" by Jacqueline Woodson
How do we begin to tell this country's story without turning our own selves inside out? (10)
"The Dirtiest, Most Indecent, Obscene Thing Ever Written" by Michael Chabon
... there was no other way to do it; to find out if speech was protected or not, one was obliged, first of all, to speak. (17)
"Rocket City" by Yaa Gyasi
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one that we are unwilling to postpone, and one that we intend to win." (51, John F. Kennedy)
"Loving" by Aleksandar Hemon
... laws can and must change to reflect the indelible realities of human life and life. (99)
"Secrets and Lies" by Salman Rushdie
... I know that the first step toward authoritarianism is always the destruction of people's belief that journalism is, broadly speaking, pursuing and telling the truth. (136)
"Bob Jones Builds a Wall" by Morgan Parker
Words are always blooming with possibility. (171)
"Stateside Statelessness" by Moses Sumney
We get our sense of self from a sense of home. We are taught to root our identities in feelings of belonging and community. We are programmed, across customs, to define ourselves by our origins first and our preferences second. But who are you if you can't be identified? (219-220)
"You've Given Me a Lot to Think About" by Charlie Jane Anders
I'm not here to give you a lot to think about. My body is not statement, or an inconvenience, or a threat to anyone's security. ... When some bodies are illegal, when people are forced to choose either having basic rights or being their authentic selves, then everybody is diminished. (267)
October 10, 2020
I have waited to write this review because I was not sure what exactly to say about the book. It is a collection of "stories" by several different writers, so of course the writing is stylistically erratic.
The problems in this book lie with Chabon (who I love as a writer) and Waldman (meh...). It is a great idea for a book about an organization that I dis agree with a great deal of the time, but still thank God that they are there. Kind of in a Niemöller way. It is an attempt to bring to life court cases that are often viewed as dry and boring.
I have two main problems with this attempt. The first is the choice of cases and the second is the actual writing.
First, is that out of 40 cases featured, 10 of them are cases where the ACLU just filed an amicus brief. Although their opinions were important and very well may have helped sway the decision of the court, it still felt like the editors were trying to pad the CV a bit. (Brown v Board of Ed., and NY Times V Sullivan being two). There is a big difference between attending the meeting and being responsible for the gathering in the first place. I feel the ACLU has enough credentials this wasn't needed. Reducing the cases would have allowed fewer pieces of better quality.
This brings me to my second point. Some writers I just naturally enjoy more than others. Of course the same holds true with this book as well. That being said, when picking writers to basically collaborate on a work (even if they each write a different chapter) there needs to be some cohesion or a concentrated effort to arrange the pieces in a manner that the difference in writing is not painful. The editors of this book did not do that. They have ordered the pieces mostly chronologically (the exception being when one writer tackles two cases, like Gaiman discussing Reno v ACLU and Ashcroft v ACLU). They then failed to assign the cases to authors in a stylistic order. This may have been a choice made by letting authors discuss cases that meant the most to them. It is an understandable priority, but the result is at times jarring and disappointing.
Individual pieces that are exceptional are written by Gaiman, Chabon, Rushdie, Tobar and De La Pava. Especially De La Pava. Both De La Pava and Tobar write on cases that were amicus filings Gideon and Miranda respectively, which might explain the choice to include them. Still they could have spoken to other cases.
There were other good pieces as well. I want to comment on the pieces and not the authors, because again, it may just be an issue with preference. May main issue is that a great number of the pieces have little to do with the cases they are linked to. Many of them serve as a jumping off point for personal rants not so much about what has been achieved, but by what their perfect world would be.
After reading the whole thing I would say, "Read it, but don't feel like you have to read all of it. If you want to skip ahead...do." Likely you wont be missing much.
The problems in this book lie with Chabon (who I love as a writer) and Waldman (meh...). It is a great idea for a book about an organization that I dis agree with a great deal of the time, but still thank God that they are there. Kind of in a Niemöller way. It is an attempt to bring to life court cases that are often viewed as dry and boring.
I have two main problems with this attempt. The first is the choice of cases and the second is the actual writing.
First, is that out of 40 cases featured, 10 of them are cases where the ACLU just filed an amicus brief. Although their opinions were important and very well may have helped sway the decision of the court, it still felt like the editors were trying to pad the CV a bit. (Brown v Board of Ed., and NY Times V Sullivan being two). There is a big difference between attending the meeting and being responsible for the gathering in the first place. I feel the ACLU has enough credentials this wasn't needed. Reducing the cases would have allowed fewer pieces of better quality.
This brings me to my second point. Some writers I just naturally enjoy more than others. Of course the same holds true with this book as well. That being said, when picking writers to basically collaborate on a work (even if they each write a different chapter) there needs to be some cohesion or a concentrated effort to arrange the pieces in a manner that the difference in writing is not painful. The editors of this book did not do that. They have ordered the pieces mostly chronologically (the exception being when one writer tackles two cases, like Gaiman discussing Reno v ACLU and Ashcroft v ACLU). They then failed to assign the cases to authors in a stylistic order. This may have been a choice made by letting authors discuss cases that meant the most to them. It is an understandable priority, but the result is at times jarring and disappointing.
Individual pieces that are exceptional are written by Gaiman, Chabon, Rushdie, Tobar and De La Pava. Especially De La Pava. Both De La Pava and Tobar write on cases that were amicus filings Gideon and Miranda respectively, which might explain the choice to include them. Still they could have spoken to other cases.
There were other good pieces as well. I want to comment on the pieces and not the authors, because again, it may just be an issue with preference. May main issue is that a great number of the pieces have little to do with the cases they are linked to. Many of them serve as a jumping off point for personal rants not so much about what has been achieved, but by what their perfect world would be.
After reading the whole thing I would say, "Read it, but don't feel like you have to read all of it. If you want to skip ahead...do." Likely you wont be missing much.
August 4, 2020
A vital and enlightening book that shows how many crucial parts of American culture were put into place through Supreme Court cases and the work of the ACLU. From free speech issues, to women's health, to rights of those arrested and detained, to rights of immigrants, LGBTQ + groups, and Native Americans, these essays cover the times the ACLU fought - and continues to fight - for equal treatment under the law. Fascinating from a constitutional interpretation standpoint too. I listened to the audiobook, which has a star-studded lineup of both writers and readers.
February 11, 2020
It is easy to forget how hard some of us have had to fight to obtain or retain rights that others take for granted. Some of these essays are easier to read and understand than others, but overall this is an important record of the unending fight that the ACLU has undertaken to ensure rights for all. Thank you to all the writers who have responded and contributed to this volume.
October 20, 2022
This was really interesting and absolutely should be read slow but steady, but I have a hard time thinking who I might recommend it to.
March 23, 2020
Pros:
1. The format is similar to "The End of Hunger" in that there are multiple writers rather than one. But what I like about this book is that unlike "The End of Hunger" it's very organized. Each writer gets a separate case they comment on and each case leads to the next case until we get to a present Pipeline Case that the ACLU is currently working on.
2. I like how there is such a variety in regards to the approach/style each writer chooses to take when analyzing their selected case. Some were personally involved/impacted with the case in some way so they tell their story, others get into the legal jargon (was great reading the "lawyer writers" who did this), others describe how one case impacts society as a whole, etc.
2A. These different styles stem from the fact that figures of a variety of fields were selected in a way. Sure all of them were writers but writers from different genres and some were/are lawyers, musicians, and filmmakers as well.
3. I like how A big-time lawyer and author in this book were allowed to argue against the ACLU for a particular case. I feel like his section showcased that the ACLU, like any other organization if you "look beyond the veal" is composed of fallible human beings that are capable of making wrong decisions.
Cons:
1. I felt like some of the writers "flexed too much" or they tried to place as many big words as they could into one sentence just for the heck of it and you could tell.
1A. Some writers well..... "flexed too little" lol like they would just literally describe the case and what led up to the case and that's it like you could basically google the insight they provided, or maybe they googled, yourself.
2. The book needed more writers that are also lawyers and/or legal scholars. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the historical insight and storytelling but certain cases needed individuals to dig up extra details and legal professionals are the best for that kind of thing.
3. Certain sections were way too long and I found myself reading half of those and skipping half of them. Additionally, in certain sections, writers were either too biased (liberal) and/or failed to showcase why a particular narrowly applicable case should matter to me and what I should get from it personally so I skipped some of those sections in their entirety after a few pages in.
1. The format is similar to "The End of Hunger" in that there are multiple writers rather than one. But what I like about this book is that unlike "The End of Hunger" it's very organized. Each writer gets a separate case they comment on and each case leads to the next case until we get to a present Pipeline Case that the ACLU is currently working on.
2. I like how there is such a variety in regards to the approach/style each writer chooses to take when analyzing their selected case. Some were personally involved/impacted with the case in some way so they tell their story, others get into the legal jargon (was great reading the "lawyer writers" who did this), others describe how one case impacts society as a whole, etc.
2A. These different styles stem from the fact that figures of a variety of fields were selected in a way. Sure all of them were writers but writers from different genres and some were/are lawyers, musicians, and filmmakers as well.
3. I like how A big-time lawyer and author in this book were allowed to argue against the ACLU for a particular case. I feel like his section showcased that the ACLU, like any other organization if you "look beyond the veal" is composed of fallible human beings that are capable of making wrong decisions.
Cons:
1. I felt like some of the writers "flexed too much" or they tried to place as many big words as they could into one sentence just for the heck of it and you could tell.
1A. Some writers well..... "flexed too little" lol like they would just literally describe the case and what led up to the case and that's it like you could basically google the insight they provided, or maybe they googled, yourself.
2. The book needed more writers that are also lawyers and/or legal scholars. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the historical insight and storytelling but certain cases needed individuals to dig up extra details and legal professionals are the best for that kind of thing.
3. Certain sections were way too long and I found myself reading half of those and skipping half of them. Additionally, in certain sections, writers were either too biased (liberal) and/or failed to showcase why a particular narrowly applicable case should matter to me and what I should get from it personally so I skipped some of those sections in their entirety after a few pages in.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 reviews