Wild Man: The Life and Times of Daniel Ellsberg

Having to practice the piano as a kid seems to me such a great start for the life of an intellectual, that even the beginning of this book made sense to me. I can relate to most of the character features of this book in an intellectual way, also. It is reported on page 573 that "Ellsberg was invited by undergraduates to teach a student-sponsored course on `nuclear weapons and foreign policy'at Stanford in 1979." As a lesson in reality, student interest dwindled rapidly when students discovered "that Ellsberg `relied too much on his memory of what he personally was involved in. . . . It may not have been well organized." More in line with the way everybody is thinking about these things, Harvard Medical School arranged for Ellsberg to teach a course under a center John Mack "had set up called the Center for Psychological Studies in the Nuclear Age." (p. 573). This approaches the field of philosophy in allowing the students to think that they are directly engaging in a study of the thoughts of their professor.I have owned WILD MAN / THE LIFE AND TIMES OF DANIEL ELLSBERG for a year, and appreciated the information about his Harvard years the most. He certainly had more fun at Harvard than I ever had. Photograph number 5, showing "Daniel and Carol Ellsberg holding the purloined ibis at Harvard" shows how readily the students who wrote the "Crimson" could make the news in their paper whatever they wanted it to be, including his line, "It is absurd to maintain that a copper bird could have arranged a series of audiences with notables, or eluded pursuers unaided." (p. 89). Ultimately, news in this country became about what the students at Harvard thought it was. I'm afraid the failure which WILD MAN frequently expresses about the life of Daniel Ellsberg relate to the character of our political system as much as to anything that Daniel Ellsberg might have done.For a few months, I have been reading SAKHAROV / A BIOGRAPHY by Richard Lourie, and I noticed that Daniel Ellsberg was mentioned on page 360 of that book, as someone that Sakharov saw after seven years in which he had seen no one. Sakharov is not mentioned in WILD MAN, not even in the list of people who Tom Wells would give more credit to than Daniel Ellsberg for accomplishing something in the control of nuclear weapons. Politically, it was always felt that Daniel Ellsberg's contributions were "not going to be any kind of dynamite," (p. 351), but Ellsberg himself seemed "nervous and worried. . . . He spoke fast and made jerky movements. He seemed to be a harried man." (p. 351). Sakharov had the advantage of dealing with a political system which could see the need for a change, when he could deal with a leader, Gorbachev, who sincerely needed to find ways to change things for the better. Daniel Ellsberg is already in a system in which change is such a constant that almost anyone in the system could be the anonymous source who told Tom Wells, "I mean, he doesn't even begin to pretend

Having been interviewed for this book I can testify to the trueness of the part that dealt with the overlap between Dan Ellsberg and myself. Tom Wells gives an absolutely remarkable picture of that time, the time I knew Ellsberg. Presumably Wells's skill at interweaving the stories given by the many people he interviewed are accurate throughout the book. Fascinating book. I couldn't put it down. Interesting to see this picture of the muddle and deceit of our government about that war. I recommend the book to those too young to remember some of Ellsberg's times as well as to those of us who are old enough to remember part of the history of his times. Wells has done a terrific job.

Rarely have I read a biography that gave me so much insight into the life and personality of a major public figure. Wells is to be commended for a searching portrait of an amazingly complex personality. He clearly did his homework, conducting numerous interviews of Ellsberg himself and many of the living sources on him, including his family, friends, and colleagues. No one can leave this book without a better appreciation of the complex influences that caused Ellsberg to release the Pentagon Papers; this was clearly an act of personal courage, but perhaps also motivated by some element of self-aggrandizement. (Then again, unless one takes an extremely simplistic view of history, whose motives are ever pure and unadulterated?) Wells would have us wonder if Ellsberg's career had continued on its upwards trajectory as a "supergenius" and insider at RAND, he would ever have released the Papers; I believe that diminishes Ellsberg's anti-war motivation far too much, however. And the book does seem, if anything, rather personally biased against Ellsberg, whom the author seems to delight in describing at great length in not terribly attractive terms. Indeed, whenever Wells faces any ambiguity about his subject, he seems to consciously choose not to give Ellsberg the benefit of the doubt. Wells also does a great deal of overtly interjecting his own biases and parenthetical observations into the narrative, which is more than a little disconcerting. Finally, the choice of the title seems both unfortunate and somewhat sensationalistic. But this is probably the fullest picture we will ever have of this man. Perhaps most useful of all is the book's detailed narrative of the copying and release of the Pentagon Papers and the Nixon Administration's almost comic attempt--comic if it weren't so frightening--to stop Ellsberg and his comrades at any cost. The ultimate irony, one can infer from Wells, is that while Ellsberg's release of the Papers had far less impact on ending the Vietnam War than he had hoped, the Nixon Administration's attempt to wreak vengeance on him and stop his antiwar activities probably led to Nixon's demise in the Watergate mess.

It is long, but it struck me as effectively structured and altogether clear, with brief repetitions that helped pull together the data and interpretations, the drama and the conflicts. Yes, the author pulls no punches in critically putting Ellsberg into a larger context beyond the releasing of those Papers, but I judge this to be relevant to a rounded, analytical, and probing biography. The idea that the Papers' release had an indirect impact on bringing down Nixon was new and plausible to me. Wells avoids the more extreme debunking of Ellsberg (such as those who hold that his act caused millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese to be killed). My reading is that Wells has also been courageous, ambitious, super-patient, and fair, appreciating Ellsberg's soaring great acts and texts as well as grasping his humanity -- virtues, faults, elegancies, suavities, passions, and all. It did not strike me as a hatchet job, but as insightful and often sympathetic to the one who dared -- and the sheer guts of Ellsberg in his historic defiance of the establishment awes me still. Sure, it's always tricky to impute motives to others (and maybe there is a very lot more yet to Dr. Wild Man), but I can relate to Wells's claim that he has captured much of a complex, significant, and anguished character. Finally, I see some of Ellsberg now in certain bright but difficult people I work with, and in that way too Wells has increased my general understandings of them, me, and my times.

In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg did a very brave and daring thing. The release of the Pentagon Papers was seen by others in my generation as one of the greatest acts of heroism imaginable. It is not surprising that Ellsberg -- the man -- is not the shining star that I thought he was in the summer of '71. Wells' book presents the man in amazing detail and we see him for the complex and perplexing person he is. Wells has done a great deal of research to write this book and it explodes off the page. Some may say that Ellsberg is a man for whom a biography is not deserved, but reading even the first chapter makes you realize just how central he is to the last 30 years of American history. After that, the book reads like a good novel.