at first i was a bit bemused thinking that the author was saying that because the young Churchill had seen melodramas, and loved them, in the theatre he was vastly influenced to present his ideas not only in that style but using cues from the hyperbolic message of the good guys always win, the hero is a good guy against all odds and will succeed, there are people who need saving and the hero can do it etc. Could it be possible that Rose is truly suggesting that because there were melodramas on stage (and he thinks there are no more melodramas on stage - or on television or in the movies now!!!) that Churchill developed a certain penchant for political behaviour and convictions reflecting those childhood years. Hmm. But it got better - there is a certain amateur quality to some of the literary and biographical assessments, and the definition of 'literary' is exceedingly broad - it means more like 'rhetoric' in its broadest sense to him - i learned a lot of personal things about Churchill that were a new colouration to the man, but some of the speculation about how contemporary culture and styles of communication actually influenced his anaylsis of foreign affairs seemed simplistic and unfounded. But it is right to think of Churchill who won Nobel prize in literature in this light, and i do not know of anyone who has so i was really drawn to this book. It provides, it seems to me, a good platform for more work in this field of intellectual history. does the cultural product of a person's time combined with his taste (and in this case Rose tells us his father was a 'humbug' often posing for style to gain attention rather than presenting content...) truly have direct impact on their actions in history - and how - could Churchill see that he had a taste for melodrama (if he did).?? it's an interesting premise but not entirely convincingly argued. It is an entertaining read, nicely if sometimes casually written - it will satisfy Churchill fans for sure.