Everyone will ALWAYS judge youA critique on the critique of a speechMany people throughout history have read, reread and discussed, criticized, dissected and reinterpreted other people's stories and speeches. They all try to find a new way to look at them and try to get everyone to listen to their ideas about what they mean. They cherry-pick every little detail of the speech in question until there is not much left to admire, and sometimes they often miss the entire meaning of the written work. It turns out that it's pretty boring and obnoxious to take someone else's work and turn it into something else entirely. But sometimes it can be found quite enlightening and surprising. One man, Alan Axelrod, took President Roosevelt's first inaugural address and attempted to interpret it into Nothing to Fear: Leadership Lessons from FDR. Alan Axelrod had a very distinct impression of what President Roosevelt was attempting to portray in his inaugural address; Alan believed the president was specifically addressing fear. He used many examples to support his theories and also used historical references. As further evidence of how Alan believed the president felt about fear, he used some of Roosevelt's past experiences. Alan stated, “In 1921 polio threatened first to kill him [President Roosevelt] and then to paralyze him… He could then have succumbed to the fog of fear, but he chose not to.” According to Roosevelt's personal history and the many trials he had to endure, he had many close encounters with fear and anguish. This is exactly what Alan states in his critique and this assumption seems to be well based in fact but in reality it could be completely wrong. Axelrod also came to the conclusion that... half of the paper... the speech was for his personal taste but lacked concrete evidence that could be used to convince others to believe that it was written with a certain underlying meaning. Also. With all the talk about fear and how it's just fog and how it can be lifted and your whole perspective can change, it seems very romanticized and unrealistic, in a way. If he wanted to make his philosophy understood, then he should have had more proof of his hypothesis.' Alan, like many other people, searched through specific pieces and tried to find some happy, uplifting thought or some dark, depressing undertone. Perhaps we should simply leave the interpretation to our imagination, and then we can agree that it is a wonderful work. I have to admit that Alan did quite well in trying to understand and solve the riddle of the inaugural address, but honestly he could have done so much better.