Elon Musk

The temptation with a character like Musk would be to color the man by recent actions, and this is just what Isaacson avoids. Musk's mad dash from left to right, from empathic to near sociopathic, leaves many flummoxed. Heraclitus said that character is destiny, and while I have problems with this particular philosophy (I would argue that action is destiny and than a person can — as many have — overcome character to act well and in accords with greatness), this idea does seem to be playing out right on course for Musk. Upon finishing the book I thought I had an understanding of why Musk does the things he does, and this is about the best cover copy a biography could want. None of this is to say that I agree with Musk's principles or the conclusions he reaches as a result of holding those principles — it simply means that I believe Musk is in fact a man living out his principles. He is a flawed human. Of course. Some of us are more flawed than others and Musk is pretty high on that chart most days. The problem with a society that imbues individuals with this much money, unchecked, is that the wealth comes with commensurate power. As such, Musk's flaws and mistakes are magnified many times over. I've often thought that this was what money actually was: a magnifier. A charitable poor person will be, upon becoming rich, a more charitable person. A poor miser will make an even more miserly rich person. Anger, humility, creativity, loving kindness, sociopathy, saintliness — all of these things become magnified through the lens of an increased bank account. Musk has achieved a wealth to rival entire nation states and so his foibles and his gifts are on display, equally magnified, playing out before us in real time. I don't know how his story is eventually going to play out. Neither do you. I am curious to find out. All or most of Isaacson's subjects are dead by the time he writes their stories, so I'm left to wonder if the author won't be doing a follow up as Musk's game moves into extra innings. What is obvious is that the final chapter has not been written, and that whether it's Isaacson that writes it or someone else, I would not feel confident judging Musk as a net positive or net negative force for human affairs and history based solely on this necessarily incomplete history of the man. What I can say is that Musk will likely continue to be a force acting out and acting upon us all in some form or fashion for the foreseeable future.

Apart from Twitter part dragging out for far too long, I absolutely adored this audiobook. Interesting and engaging all throughout. Truly gives you an insight into a mind of this genius. My favorite work of Isaacson so far (Elon > Jobs > Einstein > da Vinci).


Elon is often perceived as an asshole, lacks empathy (he does have Asperger's), and exhibits somewhat of a multiple personality disorder. He continues to grapple with the scars of his childhood, largely shaped by the abusive behavior of his father, whose behavior he's known to portray. He has an addiction to taking risks and frequently acts on impulse, a habit that often leads him to inadvertently sabotage himself (Twitter, anyone?). However, I can't help but admire him for everything he has accomplished and has yet to achieve.


Would he accomplish all of this if he was any different? Probably not.


“As Shakespeare teaches us, all heroes have flaws, some tragic, some conquered, and those we cast as villains can be complex. Even the best people, he wrote, are ‘molded out of faults.' ”

The book starts off promisingly but soon veers into subjective territory. As a biography, one would expect a balanced and objective perspective, yet this book disappoints in that regard. It covers Musk's life and achievements for three-quarters of its length, but the final quarter feels like a day-to-day Twitter chronicle. This section, while perhaps relevant at the time of publication, seems unlikely to hold long-term interest.

As the narrative progresses, Isaacson appears increasingly enamored with his subject, bordering on fanboy territory. This bias tints many of the stories within, undermining the book's credibility. A glaring example of this is the fabricated tale of a Ukrainian submarine and Starlink, making it clear no one fact checked anything.

The lack of editorial rigor is evident not just in these inaccuracies but also in the book's unwieldy length. It seems as if there was a rush to publish, leading to a compromise in quality. This is particularly disappointing considering my already tempered expectations from Isaacson, following his horrible biography of Steve Jobs.

The book does offer some intriguing insights and is worth a read or skim. However, I advise taking its contents with a big spoon of salt.

This is embarrassing. I don't mean in terms of content- that's true, but we all know that. That's why we read it.
I mean this is written like it went through a first draft and was never touched again. Awful pacing, terrible prose, extremely short and blunt to the point of being confusing because important context and events happening around Elon's life are not elaborated on or are only elaborated on by chance (like Larry David's casual mention of Uvalde which contextualized why the fuck he confronted Musk, instead of Isaacson doing his job and describing what event and tweet might have caused David to say something in the first place). This reads like a Twitter thread, which is fitting. It reads like a bullet point list of stories that were fleshed out into sentences because the publisher wouldn't publish it as-is. It neither reads like journalism or biography. There are no actual themes examined outside of some weak 11th-grade level of creative writing posturing at the end. The timelines are confusing because they're neither chronological nor sorted by topic. On g-d who edited this? Who let this make it to the presses in this condition?
I'm embarrassed that I read this.
Great stories to tell over the phone, especially from his childhood, so no one I know has to read it so that's why it's not .25. Blow by blow incoming, spoilered to be safe I guess:

Isaacson, if you fucking agree with Musk, just say that. Don't play the game of being “impartial” or “objective” and then switch to just [REDACTED]ing off Elon. It's confusing! Are you saying these extremely opinionated and rightwing things because ELON thinks those things and you're writing in his voice, or are you saying them because you're trying to portray “facts” and you agree with Elon's interpretation, or a secret third thing? Also, why misgender and deadname Jenna so many times? You already told us her deadname if you were concerned people wouldn't know who the fuck you're talking about! It's obviously fucked up and it doesn't even read well even if you're a transphobe you absolute excuse for a journalist. Why do you take everything Elon says at face-value, and only occasionally interrogate him or anyone around him, particularly about work conditions? Why no investigation into the financial matters around his work? You really expect me to believe people stayed because of Elon's vision and not because of the pay or benefits? That wasn't worth mentioning one time? Those are basic facts brother, same as the insane quotes about “oh well you know demon mode isn't that serious” or whatever. On that note, why so little thought into Twitter's working conditions and no comment/interview with any former engineers that were dropped in that first round? I mean damn bro I get you're embarrassingly sympathetic to the man but grow a spine.Why mention some tweets that dropped Tesla stock, some tweets that had legal implications, and some tweets that had intrapersonal implications, and not all? Why did we waste so much ink on some random dumb tweets and not, say, his Twitter feud with Grimes about pronouns where she was like “I know that's not you”? She had nothing to say to you about that? At all? Or about what was going on with Jenna besides the constant assertion you repeat that she knows he has beef with Jenna's politics? Why would you waste ink telling us what we already know over and over instead of like, digging deeper? Did Jenna refuse to speak with you, also? Why not mention that? At least tell me you tried, I was left wondering if you even bothered to reach out the way you clearly were trying to build a theme around Errol and Elon despite their silence- why not interrogate the silence between Elon and Jenna?Why bring up that random alleged thing about him harassing that one celebrity to explain the Gates' feud and not the alleged Grimes Reddit post? ESPECIALLY if Elon didn't have to approve the book? The Grimes Reddit post went super viral and was WAY more visible in the cultural zeitgeist than that dumbass allegation! On that note, why breeze past Elon's insane affairs without doing ANY digging into how people felt about that? He brought a girlfriend with him, Grimes, and their kids to meet Errol and when Grimes bailed with the kids to see the grandparents, and Errol said something mad weird about the girlfriend, why the fuck did you not explain why he even brought a girlfriend WITH HIS BABY MAMA!! Why do we just breeze past major intrapersonal things like that without even a whisper of a comment from at least GRIMES? Or anyone around him? Are you being serious?Why so few (and pithy) comments on the animal experimentation at Neurolink?Not ONE interrogation into the insane assertion that the Cybertruck needed to be bulletproof? Did that not come up before this had to be published?

I'm glad I'm done with this so the library will stop harassing me to get it back to the other 10 million people in line and I can actually read the good books in my TBR. This was not worth the time I put into it.