The Age of Reagan: 1980-1989, by Steven F. Hayward

I really enjoyed the first volume of Hayward's biography of Ronald Reagan, The Age of Reagan: 1964-1980. I also enjoyed the second volume, but not as much as the first. I liked learning about Reagan's principled stand for lower taxes, a strong defense, the elimination of nuclear weapons, and the evil of communism. I didn't like the stories about the infighting among his cabinet and the political necessity of compromising with congress. These were big parts of Reagan's presidency and deserve to be chronicled--I just wasn't as interested. I also would have liked to read more about his relationship with Margaret Thatcher and the similar economic revolution she brought about in Britain.

Hayward is a great writer and has a wonderful way of setting up each chapter to let us know something interesting is in store for us, either by talking about a controversial topic, such as Iran-Contra, or by putting it in the context of a bigger event, such as the fall of the Soviet Union.

After finishing both volumes of Hayward's biography, I have to rank Ronald Reagan as one of our best presidents. He fought for economic reform which resulted in a growing economy for two decades, he put pressure on the Soviet Union which ended the cold war, and he showed that a principled politician can win and make progress toward smaller government, even though no president after him has followed his lead. We can still hope a future president will.

'Salem's Lot by Stephen KIng

In my continuing quest to read everything Stephen King has written, I've finished 'Salem's Lot, a tale about vampires taking over a small Maine town. This was King's second published novel, and it showed off his skill at style with wonderful descriptions and beautiful phrases. However, the characters were rather thin even though he spent a lot of time developing them. The plot was also lacking, and about half-way through I found it tough to keep reading because I already knew that the rest of the book would be people vs. vampires, and I didn't really care that much about any of the characters.

The introduction to 'Salem's Lot is interesting. Written in 2005--thirty years after publication--King makes a case against plotting in favor of panting. He says that he intended the vampires to win in the end but that his characters took over and slayed the vampire. I'm sure this made it entertaining for King to write, since he didn't know himself what was going to happen. But by just letting the story wander and find its way, it made it much less interesting for the reader, as noted above.

He also mentions that he had another book, Roadwork, finished and that he could have published that one as his second novel. His editor thought Roadwork was more "literary" but that 'Salem's Lot would sell better. They decided to go with the latter, even though it typecast King in the horror genre. I think I'll read Roadwork next, to see the difference.