“A newspaper is the lowest thing there is” is a notable quote from former mayor of Chicago Richard J. Daley, and an interesting one considering Chicago’s most famous journalist immortalized him in his unofficial biography of Daley entitled “Boss”. Mike Royko, the author of the book, tells the story of Richard J. Daley and his life at the top of Chicago’s political throne as its mayor. Part biography, part history textbook, part critique all play into the writing of this book. And the end result? The inner workings of Richard J. Daley and his Democratic political machine of Chicago are one of the most fascinating and shocking phenomenons in American political history.
Before I dive into the book, I’d like to give some background information on the author Mike Royko in order to better understand his writing. Winner of the 1972 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, Royko …show more content…
Most prominently, Royko often makes claims about the city or about Daley that he fails to back up with any evidence. He assumes the reader trusts his knowledge over everything, which, in Royko’s mind, allows him to write freely without having to worry about backing up all of his statements. Another thing I thought weighed the book down was Royko’s unforgiving barrage of accusations he made at Daley by the end of the book; it seemed as if Daley was to blame for almost everything that went wrong in Chicago between 1955-1976. Royko fails to even acknowledge historian’s accepted view of Daley as one of the most effective big-city mayors in American history, instead he continues his offensive. The book was also contradicted itself often. For example, Royko depicts Daley in the ugliest and worst light he possibly can through literature, yet claims that Daley is an embodiment of Chicago more so than anyone else. If Royko wasn’t so focused on tarnishing Daley’s legacy, he would’ve had time to at the very least mention some of Daley’s positive contributions to the
Before I dive into the book, I’d like to give some background information on the author Mike Royko in order to better understand his writing. Winner of the 1972 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, Royko …show more content…
Most prominently, Royko often makes claims about the city or about Daley that he fails to back up with any evidence. He assumes the reader trusts his knowledge over everything, which, in Royko’s mind, allows him to write freely without having to worry about backing up all of his statements. Another thing I thought weighed the book down was Royko’s unforgiving barrage of accusations he made at Daley by the end of the book; it seemed as if Daley was to blame for almost everything that went wrong in Chicago between 1955-1976. Royko fails to even acknowledge historian’s accepted view of Daley as one of the most effective big-city mayors in American history, instead he continues his offensive. The book was also contradicted itself often. For example, Royko depicts Daley in the ugliest and worst light he possibly can through literature, yet claims that Daley is an embodiment of Chicago more so than anyone else. If Royko wasn’t so focused on tarnishing Daley’s legacy, he would’ve had time to at the very least mention some of Daley’s positive contributions to the