I chose to compare how the two books dealt with the explanation of the Bill of Rights. In Hakim, George Mason asked the question, " All those brilliant men and they forgot a bill of rights?" I liked how Hakim explained the bill of rights with the traditional story telling method. It is an easier read. The people come to life as you read the details. They aren't just a name and a date to memorize. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights guaranteed that we wouldn't lose our precious liberties and got Congress to pass it. That is something that I'm sure I learned but had forgotten. The thing I didn't know and don't think that I had learned was that in the Wood book it states that James Madison proposed 12 amendments but only 10 became the Bill of Rights. I think the styles and audiences for which both texts are written is definitely different. We can see both left and right brain styles and audiences. I prefer Hakim but Woods definitely adds different facts that you may not know had you only read one book. Woods more factual, no pictures or sidebars and Hakim more visual and easier to read. I can appreciate both.