"I won't read it" opens up so much conjecture about the people who proclaim it. What impels a person to publicly advertise his willful ignorance? Does he fear that he lacks the mental skills to read and decide for himself whether or not to agree with it? Is he so mentally self-indulgent that he avoids exposure to anything outside his tiny, fenced-in weed patch of likes and dislikes?
"I won't read it" opens up so much conjecture about the people who proclaim it. What impels a person to publicly advertise his willful ignorance? Does he fear that he lacks the mental skills to read and decide for himself whether or not to agree with it? Is he so mentally self-indulgent that he avoids exposure to anything outside his tiny, fenced-in weed patch of likes and dislikes?
"I won't read it" isn't the same as "I won't read anything." There are just too many other things I'd rather read yet still don't have enough time for. In Solipsism's Hierarchy of Reading Appeal biographies are pretty low.
"I won't read it" opens up so much conjecture about the people who proclaim it. What impels a person to publicly advertise his willful ignorance? Does he fear that he lacks the mental skills to read and decide for himself whether or not to agree with it? Is he so mentally self-indulgent that he avoids exposure to anything outside his tiny, fenced-in weed patch of likes and dislikes?
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be “the best and the brightest”, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
Having said that, it might be that the poster who won't read the book is simply not interested in "the cult of Steve". I can accept that. Although the real reason is that he's too busy watching "Transformers" and "Bad Teacher" to actually spend any time reading a book.
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be ?the best and the brightest?, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be ?the best and the brightest?, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
Having said that, it might be that the poster who won't read the book is simply not interested in "the cult of Steve". I can accept that. Although the real reason is that he's too busy watching "Transformers" and "Bad Teacher" to actually spend any time reading a book.
Even more elegant and simple, why not just "Jobs" with this picture as the full cover:
Jobs and a picture on the dust jacket may mean something to some folks, however, unless the subject is virtually recognizable by everyone, it isn't ideal.
Viewing Walter Isaacson's previous works you can readily see that his biographies easily identify the subject matter just by reading or hearing the title. For example, his books on Einstein, as well as on Kissinger don't require anything more than a one-word moniker. His Benjamin Franklin, on the other hand, could not, i.e., because there are too many famous/infamous Ben's or Franklin's.
The same issue, i.e,. without looking at the jacket, just what Steve or Jobs are you writing about; we all know a Steve and jobs, whether you have one, looking for one or wish you had are too numerous to list.
Thus, the title, "Steve Jobs" and a short subtitle as Issaacon has done before, though rather plain and straight forward, has proven extremely successful. Equally important, it shows respect that the author has towards not only his subject matter, but for himself personally.
I hated that title. Glad they changed it, though I'm sure I neither buy the book nor read it.
Is this a result of the "twitter Universe" .... the compelling need to post what one's action or intention is, as 'tho that info was important to the "rest of us" ...... or just an attempt to show negativity about something that, at this time, hasn't even been released yet ? ... just wondering.
Is this a result of the "twitter Universe" .... the compelling need to post what one's action or intention is, as 'tho that info was important to the "rest of us" ...... or just an attempt to show negativity about something that, at this time, hasn't even been released yet ? ... just wondering.
Why is this concept so strange to so many? Knowing that you'll not partake, participate, engage, do, experience, or join in something doesn't mean that you feel negatively about it.
Why is this concept so strange to so many? Knowing that you'll not partake, participate, engage, do, experience, or join in something doesn't mean that you feel negatively about it.
If one "feels good" about something ... they will usually find a way to"partake, participate, engage, do, experience, or join in" ..... of course, if they don't feel good about it .... they will usually find a reason to avoid it.
The fact that you took the time to post your intentions .... when nobody asked you .... tells me a lot about why you often post the way you do.
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be “the best and the brightest”, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
Having said that, it might be that the poster who won't read the book is simply not interested in "the cult of Steve". I can accept that. Although the real reason is that he's too busy watching "Transformers" and "Bad Teacher" to actually spend any time reading a book.
I'll side with you on this one, and in this rare instance take issue with the comments by solipsism, whom I have respected for his wisdom and many insights.
Biographies are nothing more than focused fragments of history, involving people who have influenced our lives and culture. Take an example in just one area - U.S. history. If you haven't read the recent biographies of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, along with 1776 and Founding Brothers and His Excellency: George Washington - by the likes of David McCullough and Joseph Ellis - then truly you have missed important contemporary perspectives on the origins of this country and what it has evolved into today. If you feel it's important to gain a deeper perspective about all things around us, then biographies have an important place, whether or not they're particularly enjoyable or "appealing" compared to the rest of our reading list. You might remember this the next time you tell your kids to eat their vegetables.
In the context of willful ignorance, the proclamations of a one-time Indiana congressman named Earl Landgrebe come to mind. At the time in the early 70s I knew Earl and was one of his constituents and supported him politically, which turned into an embarrassment after he stated during the Watergate hearings, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have a closed mind." Earl went on to seal his fate a short time later after the "smoking gun" Watergate tapes became public and Nixon lost the last shred of support from Republicans in Congress. But Landgrebe stood his ground. "I'm going to stick with my President even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot," he vowed. So his constituents did just that, in a sense, a few months later at the polls. To sum it up, it's hard to respect people who refuse to let new facts and reality confront their biases and prejudices.
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be ?the best and the brightest?, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
Having said that, it might be that the poster who won't read the book is simply not interested in "the cult of Steve". I can accept that. Although the real reason is that he's too busy watching "Transformers" and "Bad Teacher" to actually spend any time reading a book.
Hmmm, how do "we" know Transformers and Bad Teacher are not intellectually brilliant without watching them? And if "we" watch" them to validate our contempt, are we not hypocrites for dissing others for doing the same? Ahh, the traps we find ourselves in ....
Jobs and a picture on the dust jacket may mean something to some folks, however, unless the subject is virtually recognizable by everyone, it isn't ideal.
Viewing Walter Isaacson's previous works you can readily see that his biographies easily identify the subject matter just by reading or hearing the title. For example, his books on Einstein, as well as on Kissinger don't require anything more than a one-word moniker. His Benjamin Franklin, on the other hand, could not, i.e., because there are too many famous/infamous Ben's or Franklin's.
The same issue, i.e,. without looking at the jacket, just what Steve or Jobs are you writing about; we all know a Steve and jobs, whether you have one, looking for one or wish you had are too numerous to list.
Thus, the title, "Steve Jobs" and a short subtitle as Issaacon has done before, though rather plain and straight forward, has proven extremely successful. Equally important, it shows respect that the author has towards not only his subject matter, but for himself personally.
That's a fine analysis. Really. Well, except for the fact that Isaacson's previous works are entitled "Einstein: His Life and Universe", and "KIssinger: A Biography". And the new book will be called "Steve Jobs: A Biography". Why not just Steve Jobs? Why not just Kissinger? Everyone would know it's a biography!? I think it has more to do with Isaacson wanting this title to conform with the structure of his previous titles.
Comments
Wow... your intellectual curiosity is astounding.
I sense a large comic book collection in your bedroom.
Megalomaniacs gonna megalomaniac-icise...
the tile should be "I, ME, MINE"
iSteve
Stevebook
Stevebook Pro
One more thing
Wouldn't it be great
Paperbook Pro
iWorked
How do you like them apples
"I won't read it" opens up so much conjecture about the people who proclaim it. What impels a person to publicly advertise his willful ignorance? Does he fear that he lacks the mental skills to read and decide for himself whether or not to agree with it? Is he so mentally self-indulgent that he avoids exposure to anything outside his tiny, fenced-in weed patch of likes and dislikes?
"I won't read it" isn't the same as "I won't read anything." There are just too many other things I'd rather read yet still don't have enough time for. In Solipsism's Hierarchy of Reading Appeal biographies are pretty low.
Title says little. Also, 'thou shalt not judge books by the cover!'
I will neither buy nor read it too. Biography is lame, regardless who.
As defined, "A biography is an account of someone's life written by someone else."
So what is lame? The fact that it is written? Or by someone else?
Would you rather have someone read the life of someone else to you?
If you came across an account of how your great grandmother and father survived the bombing of London, would you shun it as you so declare?
Keep in mind that a history book is most often simply a gathering of stories involving someones' lives. Or do you find them lame as well?
"I won't read it" opens up so much conjecture about the people who proclaim it. What impels a person to publicly advertise his willful ignorance? Does he fear that he lacks the mental skills to read and decide for himself whether or not to agree with it? Is he so mentally self-indulgent that he avoids exposure to anything outside his tiny, fenced-in weed patch of likes and dislikes?
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be “the best and the brightest”, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
Having said that, it might be that the poster who won't read the book is simply not interested in "the cult of Steve". I can accept that. Although the real reason is that he's too busy watching "Transformers" and "Bad Teacher" to actually spend any time reading a book.
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be ?the best and the brightest?, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
Disagreeing I.
Steve Jobs: Where's my matte screen?
Steve Jobs: Why does Safari keep crashing?
Steve Jobs: You've stopped supporting my iPad already?
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be ?the best and the brightest?, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
Having said that, it might be that the poster who won't read the book is simply not interested in "the cult of Steve". I can accept that. Although the real reason is that he's too busy watching "Transformers" and "Bad Teacher" to actually spend any time reading a book.
Hey you kids, get off my lawn!
Even more elegant and simple, why not just "Jobs" with this picture as the full cover:
Jobs and a picture on the dust jacket may mean something to some folks, however, unless the subject is virtually recognizable by everyone, it isn't ideal.
Viewing Walter Isaacson's previous works you can readily see that his biographies easily identify the subject matter just by reading or hearing the title. For example, his books on Einstein, as well as on Kissinger don't require anything more than a one-word moniker. His Benjamin Franklin, on the other hand, could not, i.e., because there are too many famous/infamous Ben's or Franklin's.
The same issue, i.e,. without looking at the jacket, just what Steve or Jobs are you writing about; we all know a Steve and jobs, whether you have one, looking for one or wish you had are too numerous to list.
Thus, the title, "Steve Jobs" and a short subtitle as Issaacon has done before, though rather plain and straight forward, has proven extremely successful. Equally important, it shows respect that the author has towards not only his subject matter, but for himself personally.
I hated that title. Glad they changed it, though I'm sure I neither buy the book nor read it.
Is this a result of the "twitter Universe" .... the compelling need to post what one's action or intention is, as 'tho that info was important to the "rest of us" ...... or just an attempt to show negativity about something that, at this time, hasn't even been released yet ? ... just wondering.
Is this a result of the "twitter Universe" .... the compelling need to post what one's action or intention is, as 'tho that info was important to the "rest of us" ...... or just an attempt to show negativity about something that, at this time, hasn't even been released yet ? ... just wondering.
Why is this concept so strange to so many? Knowing that you'll not partake, participate, engage, do, experience, or join in something doesn't mean that you feel negatively about it.
Why is this concept so strange to so many? Knowing that you'll not partake, participate, engage, do, experience, or join in something doesn't mean that you feel negatively about it.
If one "feels good" about something ... they will usually find a way to"partake, participate, engage, do, experience, or join in" ..... of course, if they don't feel good about it .... they will usually find a reason to avoid it.
The fact that you took the time to post your intentions .... when nobody asked you .... tells me a lot about why you often post the way you do.
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be “the best and the brightest”, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
Having said that, it might be that the poster who won't read the book is simply not interested in "the cult of Steve". I can accept that. Although the real reason is that he's too busy watching "Transformers" and "Bad Teacher" to actually spend any time reading a book.
I'll side with you on this one, and in this rare instance take issue with the comments by solipsism, whom I have respected for his wisdom and many insights.
Biographies are nothing more than focused fragments of history, involving people who have influenced our lives and culture. Take an example in just one area - U.S. history. If you haven't read the recent biographies of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, along with 1776 and Founding Brothers and His Excellency: George Washington - by the likes of David McCullough and Joseph Ellis - then truly you have missed important contemporary perspectives on the origins of this country and what it has evolved into today. If you feel it's important to gain a deeper perspective about all things around us, then biographies have an important place, whether or not they're particularly enjoyable or "appealing" compared to the rest of our reading list. You might remember this the next time you tell your kids to eat their vegetables.
In the context of willful ignorance, the proclamations of a one-time Indiana congressman named Earl Landgrebe come to mind. At the time in the early 70s I knew Earl and was one of his constituents and supported him politically, which turned into an embarrassment after he stated during the Watergate hearings, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have a closed mind." Earl went on to seal his fate a short time later after the "smoking gun" Watergate tapes became public and Nixon lost the last shred of support from Republicans in Congress. But Landgrebe stood his ground. "I'm going to stick with my President even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot," he vowed. So his constituents did just that, in a sense, a few months later at the polls. To sum it up, it's hard to respect people who refuse to let new facts and reality confront their biases and prejudices.
All biographies are lame? Is this a serious opinion?
It is a seriously telling and unfortunate opinion.
We've become an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge society. We don't like any facts to get in the way of our opinions and biases. That's why the Fox News Network is so popular. And why there's such support for eroding teacher salaries. We consider people who do well academically to be "nerds" and we treat them with disdain unless they also happen to be rich, in which case we excuse their intelligence.
Instead, we worship 15-minute celebrities, most of who show off an incredible lack of intellect (or even decency) and we worship athletes. We wear the names of athletes on our clothing almost as if they were a religious deity. And we support candidates for political office who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of history (or anything else). Instead of wanting our politicians to be ?the best and the brightest?, we want them to be someone we want to have a beer with. We just care about their personality. In addition, we communicate with trivial Tweets and short text messages, because we don't care about depth. In our grade schools, nothing counts anymore except the grades one can achieve on math and reading tests. We no longer care much about history, science, art, music, etc.
And so we have sites like this one where not only do some people express their "wilful ignorance", but there are many, including those who supposedly have an academic degree, who can't construct a proper, comprehensible sentence. (If they're not native-English speakers, they're certainly excused.)
Having said that, it might be that the poster who won't read the book is simply not interested in "the cult of Steve". I can accept that. Although the real reason is that he's too busy watching "Transformers" and "Bad Teacher" to actually spend any time reading a book.
Hmmm, how do "we" know Transformers and Bad Teacher are not intellectually brilliant without watching them? And if "we" watch" them to validate our contempt, are we not hypocrites for dissing others for doing the same? Ahh, the traps we find ourselves in ....
Jobs and a picture on the dust jacket may mean something to some folks, however, unless the subject is virtually recognizable by everyone, it isn't ideal.
Viewing Walter Isaacson's previous works you can readily see that his biographies easily identify the subject matter just by reading or hearing the title. For example, his books on Einstein, as well as on Kissinger don't require anything more than a one-word moniker. His Benjamin Franklin, on the other hand, could not, i.e., because there are too many famous/infamous Ben's or Franklin's.
The same issue, i.e,. without looking at the jacket, just what Steve or Jobs are you writing about; we all know a Steve and jobs, whether you have one, looking for one or wish you had are too numerous to list.
Thus, the title, "Steve Jobs" and a short subtitle as Issaacon has done before, though rather plain and straight forward, has proven extremely successful. Equally important, it shows respect that the author has towards not only his subject matter, but for himself personally.
That's a fine analysis. Really. Well, except for the fact that Isaacson's previous works are entitled "Einstein: His Life and Universe", and "KIssinger: A Biography". And the new book will be called "Steve Jobs: A Biography". Why not just Steve Jobs? Why not just Kissinger? Everyone would know it's a biography!? I think it has more to do with Isaacson wanting this title to conform with the structure of his previous titles.