Wright Brothers, Wrong Story: How Wilbur Wright Solved the Problem of Manned Flight by William Hazelgrove

Wright Brothers, Wrong Story: How Wilbur Wright Solved the Problem of Manned Flight Reviews

• 
  Amy Bruestle

  I received this book as an ARC through a giveaway in return for an honest review...
  
  ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  Although non-fiction books like this one are generally not my cup of tea, I was intrigued by the title and from there went on to learn more. This book took me a while to read, as the font is teeny-tiny (at least in the ARC version), and non-fiction books just don’t seem to read as quickly as others generally.
  
  I always enjoy learning new things, especially things that relate to history. So this book was great for that! Other than that, I don’t really have much else to say about it. It’s hard to review a non-fiction book, as you can’t dispute the facts, and my experience in doing so is limited, therefore I added a short review that I did not write, however I 100% agree with because I was having a hard time finding the right (or should I say “Wright” lol) words myself. So here’s that:
  
  This book is the first deconstruction of the Wright brothers myth. They were not — as we have all come to believe–two halves of the same apple. Each had a distinctive role in creating the first “flying machine.”
  
  How could two misanthropic brothers who never left home, were high-school dropouts, and made a living as bicycle mechanics have figured out the secret of manned flight? This new history of the Wright brothers’ monumental accomplishment focuses on their early years of trial and error at Kitty Hawk (1900-1903) and Orville Wright’s epic fight with the Smithsonian Institute and Glenn Curtis. William Hazelgrove makes a convincing case that it was Wilbur Wright who designed the first successful airplane, not Orville. He shows that, while Orville’s role was important, he generally followed his brother’s lead and assisted with the mechanical details to make Wilbur’s vision a reality.
  Combing through original archives and family letters, Hazelgrove reveals the differences in the brothers’ personalities and abilities. He examines how the Wright brothers myth was born when Wilbur Wright died early and left his brother to write their history with personal friend John Kelly. The author notes the peculiar inwardness of their family life, business and family problems, bouts of depression, serious illnesses, and yet, rising above it all, was Wilbur’s obsessive zeal to test out his flying ideas. When he found Kitty Hawk, this desolate location on North Carolina’s Outer Banks became his laboratory. By carefully studying bird flight and the Rubik’s Cube of control, Wilbur cracked the secret of aerodynamics and achieved liftoff on December 17, 1903.
  
• 
  Trike

  I grew up in Dayton, Ohio, just a few miles from where the Wright brothers built the first airplane. There are few places in the world where so much of our technology has been invented. You’ve no doubt used three inventions created by Daytonians this week alone. Do you own a car? The starter, the shock absorbers, and sundry other things were invented in Dayton. Drink out of a can? Both the pull-tab and pop-top cans were invented in Dayton. The list goes on, but the airplane is the marquee invention.
  
  I was even privileged to meet one of the Wright brothers’ nieces when I was a kid, because someone in my school knew the Wrights and asked her to visit. (I also got to meet Neil Armstrong the same way; he’s from a small town just north of Dayton. It’s not an over-populated part of the country, is what I’m saying.)
  
  So the revelation that Wilbur was the real brains behind the airplane’s invention has never been a mystery to me. Orville was a gifted mechanic, to be sure, but Wilbur was an authentic genius. This book goes hard on that aspect, really hammering home the point. To the point where it begins to sound a little strident. The constant repetition was tedious, honestly, and I kept forgetting where I was in the book because it all sounded the same. I felt like I had just read this information, because I had.
  
  Another detriment was that he doesn’t make the timeline of events very clear. I do wonder how someone not steeped in Wright lore could keep everything straight, to be honest.
  
  All that said, it is an interesting story and pretty well told. If you’ve never read anything about the Wrights, this is a decent book to peruse, because Hazelgrove hits all the high points.
• 
  Jen

  I found many of the sections interesting, but I don't feel like it brought anything new to the history of the Wright Brothers. Well organized and well written.
• 
  Grady

  ‘It is hard to get flesh and bones on these two men.’
  
  Chicago author William Hazelgrove has developed a significant following as the author of ten novels and four works of nonfiction - Ripples, Tobacco Sticks, Mica Highways, Rocket Man, The Pitcher, Real Santa, Jack Pine, Hemingway’s Attic, My Best Year, The Bad Author, Madam President, Forging a President, Shots Fired in Terminal 2, and now Wright Brothers Wrong Story. While his books have received starred reviews in Publisher Weekly and Booklist, Book of the Month Selections, ALA Editors Choice Awards Junior Library Guild Selections and optioned for the movie, his major appeal is in his humanitarian approach to stories. William stays close too the heart in each of his stories, making each tale he spins one with which everyone can relate on an immediate or a remembered level. In this particular book he is attempting to set the record straight on who really solved the problem of manned flight.
  
  His synopsis of the event/book outlines it very well: ‘This book is the first deconstruction of the Wright brothers myth. They were not -- as we have all come to believe--two halves of the same apple. Each had a distinctive role in creating the first "flying machine." How could two misanthropic brothers who never left home, were high-school dropouts, and made a living as bicycle mechanics have figured out the secret of manned flight? This new history of the Wright brothers' monumental accomplishment focuses on their early years of trial and error at Kitty Hawk (1900-1903) and Orville Wright's epic fight with the Smithsonian Institute and Glenn Curtis. William Hazelgrove makes a convincing case that it was Wilbur Wright who designed the first successful airplane, not Orville. He shows that, while Orville's role was important, he generally followed his brother's lead and assisted with the mechanical details to make Wilbur's vision a reality. Combing through original archives and family letters, Hazelgrove reveals the differences in the brothers' personalities and abilities. He examines how the Wright brothers myth was born when Wilbur Wright died early and left his brother to write their history with personal friend John Kelly. The author notes the peculiar inwardness of their family life, business and family problems, bouts of depression, serious illnesses, and yet, rising above it all, was Wilbur's obsessive zeal to test out his flying ideas. When he found Kitty Hawk, this desolate location on North Carolina's Outer Banks became his laboratory. By carefully studying bird flight and the Rubik's Cube of control, Wilbur cracked the secret of aerodynamics and achieved liftoff on December 17, 1903. Hazelgrove's richly researched and well-told tale of the Wright brothers' landmark achievement, illustrated with rare historical photos, captures the excitement of the times at the start of the "American century."
  
  Though there are those who disagree with William’s summary, all must admit that it is healthy to revisit history and re-examine the permutations. The book is an interesting and informative one: William Hazelgrove continues to grow as a writer of importance whose breadth of interest in topics for novels is truly astonishing.
• 
  Steve Majerus-Collins

  First, let me say that William Hazelgrove can pound out some pretty good prose. He's a real writer, one with insight and a gift for the language. Though he goes overboard sometimes, I can forgive that because some of this book is genuinely delightful.
  Now let's get to the meat of it: This volume aims to take down the myth that the Wright Brothers, together, took mankind into the skies. Its argument boils down to its oft-repeated insistence that Wilbur, not Orville, did most of the heavy lifting and deserves the bulk of the credit. They weren't an equal pair. One was a genius, the other smart enough to go along for the ride.
  I've always had more than a passing interest in the Wright Brothers, no doubt because my father was in the Air Force and I lived just a short way from the fields where Orville and Wilbur perfected their primitive planes. The idea that they were flying in motorized kites in the same spot where bombers, fighter jets and even the SR-71 whizzed past in my youth was exciting in its way.
  So I've read quite a bit over the years, gawked at museum exhibits and otherwise became familiar with these two odd men from Dayton, where I lived for eight years. And I must confess that I never had the idea that Orville was the equal of his brother. It always seemed like Wilbur, who had the misfortune of dying at an early age (from typhoid, not a crash), was the brains of the operation. So I read Hazelgrove's book with a bit of confusion about why he was harping so much against what seemed to me to be a straw man argument. Don't we all know that Wilbur brought the intellectual firepower to this world-changing discovery?
  Then there's the notion that Orville was not just lesser but replaceable, not an indispensable part of an immortal pairing. I don't buy that either. There must be many geniuses who never manage to pull it all together, to translate their visions and insights into something practical and real. Without Orville, it's not clear to me that Wilbur would be remembered for anything at all. They were a team, a couple, a pairing for the ages, each adding something vital to the mix.
  So as I read, over and over, as Hazelgrove touted Wilbur and dismissed Orville, I had a single thought that came up repeatedly: What horseshit.
  My other problem with this book is that it badly needed better editing. I can't even begin to recite all the times that the same information, often using the same words, was repeated within a few pages. That drives a careful reader crazy. Does the author think I can't retain some basic point or piece of information for five minutes or so? It's maddening. It shouldn't happen, though I suspect Hazelgrove was in a hurry to get this book out on the market to take advantage of interest spurred by David McCullough's recent volume on the brothers.
  In any case, I have hopes that something else by Hazelgrove might shine. This book doesn't.
• 
  Jason Braatz

  First, the bad: The author's writing style is a bit unnatural and jumps around so much, reading this book is almost like reading a high-school paper. I can't deduct a star though since to me a non-fiction book is about substance, not eloquence.
  
  Second, the good: From a substance perspective, this is an interesting foray into a commonly known story but not a commonly known truth about the Wright Brother's. The author does a great job of connecting the facts to make the argument that it was Wilbur, not Orville, who should really be front-and-center as the man who invented flight. Since he passed away prior to Wilbur and (as the author lays out in context) there was a myriad of patent litigation going on at the time, undoubtedly the story became two brothers "of equals" for protectionist reasons by Orville. From this vantage point, it makes perfect sense and the author did a great job in the bibliography pointing out his sources for it.
  
  I've not read anything prior to this on the Wright Brother's, so much of this was new (to me). Honestly what drew me to the book was the title, I believe that because I didn't know enough of the story, I was curious to hear about it. The author does a great job with bringing up sometimes perhaps commonly-known information in such a way as to not overburden his thesis yet it's great to be introduced to it for those who haven't previously studied this story.
  
  Outside of some unnecessary side narratives and the writing style in general, I'd recommend this book on it's substance. It's well researched and clearly has been thought through on different angles presenting an argument that's not commonly found in literature for the Wright Brothers.
• 
  Daniel

  Before reading Wright brothers wrong story I knew that there were two wright brothers and they flew a plane at kitty hawk.
  
  I had no idea they never married or had children and lived with their father and sister. I supposed I assumed that had married and had children.
  
  And I also learned that the first flight on film was on December 17, 1903 with Orville flying the plane. I had thought that the first flight was around 1912.
  
  I also liked learning about Samuel Langley and his 50 thousand dollar aerodrome and its failure to fly and then the Smithsonian attempt to make it appear that it did fly by having Glenn Curtiss modify and have a pilot fly the plane in 1914 so as to make it appear that it could have flown before the wright brothers 1903 flyer.
  
  I also enjoyed learning about Glenn Curtiss who made motorcycles then went into making planes and his battles with the Wrights over their patent.
  
  Another person I learning about who stick out for me after reading the book is Orville wrights Secretary Mabel Beck.
  
  By reading Wright Brothers wrong story I learned interesting things about the Wright Brothers that I did not know about before reading the book. I learned about their home life, that Wilber was the driving force behind flying, Wilber Built a wind tunnel to test designs, Wilber died in 1912. I did not know that he died so many years before Orville. In fact I had never even wondered when the Wright brothers died.
  
  And other thing that surprised me from the book is that for a few years after the 1903 flight at kitty hawk was that people did not believe that actually flew a plane. I thought people would have believed them soon after the first flight.
  
  I found it to be a very readable and informative book about the Wright Brothers.
  
• 
  Shelly Itkin

  If you are a fan of Mr Hazelgrove as I am you will realize that from some of his former books like"and the "Al Capone in the 1933Worl's fair " you will always learn something new.
  
  Many people were under the assumption that Orville was the one who designed the first successful airplane when in fact it was Wilbur.
  Wilbur was four years older then his brother but many did not realize the age difference as they worked together from an early age.
  Many obstacles such as serious illness and depression played a huge part in the brother's lives. Wilbur was kind of possessed with testing out and flying. When he found Kitty Hawk located on North Carolina's outer banks that were where he did all his research. After many unsuccessful attempts, he achieved a liftoff on December 17, 1903.
  
  This book is very detailed and different than other books on the subject. Be prepared to go on a magical journey thru the lives of these two amazing brothers.
• 
  Apex157x

  Enjoyed this book Immensely. As a history lover, the Wright brothers and Thomas Edison are my 2 favorite inventors. The value of this book was it took a closer look behind the basic rote story I grew up with, that Wilbur was the main driving force behind the research etc., and I was not aware of the patent court cases between them and the Smithsonian. The author carefully laid out the background of all players, if you will, from their father and sister, Orville and Wilbur themselves and others that were part of the whole. Well done! Also was delightful to be able to "see" what took place at Kitty Hawk, the ups and downs of the experimentation and testing, the description of how Wilbur felt while flying and the disappointments as well. A whole new angle from the standard historical telling.
• 
  Mike McGrath

  My second Wright Bros book and next will be Tom Crouch’s The Bishop’s Boys. This author took much of McCullough’s work and focused on Wilbur. The John Kelly biography was the very first authorized bio of the brothers and published in 1943, 31 years after Wilbur died. 12-17-1903 was the date of first controlled flight under power. Sad the Wright Flyer went to London Museum rather than Smithsonian. But after Orville died in 1948 it did get brought back to US after apologies by Museum mgmt.
• 
  Todd

  I've been a fan of the Wright Brothers my whole life; grew up on Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. This book forced me to re-think everything I've learned growing up; excellent storytelling and research!
• 
  Darlene Stericker

  A compelling book describing the early history of flight. The author was a little repetitious in supporting his argument that Wilbur was the lone engineer (not Orville), but his argument seemed well supported. I believe that any reference to Gustave Whitehead was not in this book.
• 
  Mariah Oleszkowicz

  Fascinating and in-depth look at the thought process of manned flight. The last 1/3 of the book is about the Smithsonian argument so it's not as interesting. However, the part that Charles Lindbergh played was. I need to read The Bishop's Boys
• 
  Steve

  An interesting take on the story. The author has an annoying habit of quoting the same sections of a letter multiple times in the same chapter.
• 
  Christine

  It's a good general history book if you don't know the story.
• 
  Erika DeMaggio

  Listen, this story is fascinating. The writing is meh. He repeats himself a lot. Not just in theme, but sometimes verbatim between one page and the next.
• 
  Vic Lauterbach

  Described as a "richly researched and well-told tale" by the publisher, this book is actually a strange hybrid. As a record of events, it generally follows the Orville-blessed narrative laid out by Fred C. Kelly in The Wright Brothers (1943). Introduced on page 25, Kelly is inexplicably identified on page 325 as 'John' although the bibliography correctly attributes his work. Such sloppiness is a feature of this book. Howlers like the great Dayton flood happening in 1914 made me wonder about everything Hazelgrove writes. (The 1914 date was not a typo, as I first assumed. It occurs eight times.) The interpretive parts of this book promote Wilber to the singular genius who "invented the plane" and demotes Orville, Charlie Taylor and everyone else to mere helpers who enabled Wilber to realize his brilliant vision. Along with being demoted from partner to helper, Orville is blamed for the ultimate failure of the Wrights to capitalize on their 'invention' and for muddying the historical waters. All the contradictions and inaccuracies revealed since historians began comparing what the Wright brothers said after the fact to what they wrote at the time are blamed on Orville. Access to their preserved correspondence published in 1953 by Marvin Wilks McFarland has spawned much Wright revisionism, and at first glance Hazelgrove appears to be taking a revisionist approach, but his book accepts the entire Kelly-Orville narrative, only the emphasis is changed. Hazelgrove simply argues that it was Wilber, not both Wright brothers, who changed the world. Hazelgrove accepts that Orville deliberately rewrote history after Wilber died without addressing the implications of that deception. Before August 8, 1908, when Wilbur flew publicly for the first time, the only evidence that the Wrights flew in 1903 was their word. Wilber's place in history is secure only if we believe that he and Orville were completely truthful until 1912 when Orville became utterly unreliable. In 1915, Orville even rewrote the story of the historic 852-foot fourth flight on December 17, 1903, the feat that made Wilber the first man to fly, a crown he wore for 12 years. Hazelgrove provides no new information about the quirks and foibles of the Wrights which were exhaustively explored in The Bishop's Boys (2013). The best that can be said for this 'history' is that it will make any thoughtful reader wonder what really happened.
• 
  Millie

  I soooo hate to give this a low rating but... 6 stars for research; 1 star for presentation. The thesis is absolutely fascinating and the title says it all. Until now, historians-- even renowned ones like David McCullough-- have been basing their research on a false premise. Though it's only been recent that technology has granted access to a broad scope of information, even modern authors can't seem to see through the blatant contradictions and plot holes in the story of the history of human flight.
  
  Unfortunately, the preface of this book summarizes pretty much everything you need to know. (Hence I didn't bother to finish the rest.) As history, especially biography, it's definitely interesting. The compilation of facts-- bolstered by ample research-- is commendable. However, research findings are interspersed with prose of amateur literary quality; awkward sentence structure notwithstanding, the narrative is painfully redundant. What a shame. Smh. Next time, pick a format and stick to it.
• 
  Carla

  Anyone who read David McCullough’s far more engrossing bio knows, without a doubt, that the inventor genius was Wilbur Wright, and not his brother. So, while good to have a book that focuses on this, It was not new material for me. For readers who skip McCullough, this is a good intro.
• 
  Jean Mehochko

  Very interesting view of the Wright Brothers and their accomplishment -- basically, the premise is that Wilbur was the brain, the one who discovered the secret of manned flight involving warping of the wings of the airplane using aelirons, rudders and flexibility. While Orville definitely assisted and flew, it was Wilbur who studied, pondered, discovered and made possible the flight of man.
  
  I enjoyed it, though the author did tend to beat the dead horse a few times . . . worth looking into.