Jump to content

What are you reading? First Quarter 2023


williamjm
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Teng Ai Hui said:

I just finished Election by Tom Perrotta.  This definitely doesn’t get published nowadays.  I hope it isn’t in any secondary school’s library.  I only finished it because it was very short.

The 1999 film of that book is the only movie I have ever walked out of in disgust.  The only positive element of that experience of watching half a flick is that it cemented my dislike of Matthew Broderick, and I have avoided anything he has been in ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Why live in a world where They oppress and repress, murder and plunder, rape and torture?  In fact, in the face of all this, why did Homer(s) create the Iliad?

Or are you saying victims are to rejoice in what is done to them?  Not fight back, even if the chances are they will not succeed in this generation or even generations to come?

Perhaps readers who are in China (where supposedly the next World Con is located) or over here, or of Chinese heritage might read this book differently than you do?

Will they? I don't know.  I'm Indian, so not sure why the Chinese experience of empire is uniquely bad and the Indian one isn't.  The Iliad is not in fact just about oppression, murder, plunder, rape and torture.  It's also about male brotherhood, the glory (and futility) of war, honor and justice.  Whereas Babel reads like a vengeance fantasy that culminates in pointless self-destruction. 

Look, this book disturbed me deeply on multiple levels in a way that I still struggle to articulate.  I do disagree with the manichaean worldview expressed in the book, as well as the "necessity of violence" claim.  All, or virtually all, violence is futile.  But plenty of people, including those who fought in the American Revolution believed achieving freedom by force of arms is moral and lawful.   So it isn't just that. 

The claim that anti-imperialists were all Indian or Chinese or what-have-you is also untrue: (https://www.amazon.com/Rebels-Against-Raj-Western-Fighters/dp/110187483X). 

India owes a great debt to many principled British people who saw the injustice of empire and spoke up.  This book erases them from history.  In fact, it claims their courage was simply economic interest in disguise. This a bad book, with dangerously misguided ideas and twisted history.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of your declaration Babel is a novel w/o joy (what about all the fun the friends have during the course of the novel?) or hope, it might be interesting for you to consider this conclusion of today's NYT piece on the Haitian artist, Myrlande Constant, in tandem with the conclusion of Babel", particularly considering with which character we seeing continuing on into the future. (The author of the piece is a friend, and we have met Constant many times over the course of our lives.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/arts/design/myrlande-constant-haiti-vodou.html

Quote

 

.... Constant will absolutely not give up on Haiti. “I have to be home,” she said. “I can’t stay idle.” A few days after the Fort Gansevoort opening, she traveled home.

At the gallery, she had paused before the largest of her new works, titled “Reincarnation des morts,” and reiterated an outlook that transcends political conflicts or social divisions. The work depicted a kind of parade of the Gede — in tuxedos and hats, in more casual outfits, or in the form of skeletons. They were surrounded by coffins, spades, crosses, jugs, candles and other ritually relevant objects.

“You can’t forget that we’re all going there,” Constant said. “Everyone is headed for reincarnation. It’s not happy or angry. It’s a reunion.” We work for the ancestors, she said, and they send us messages. “As much as we think about them, they think about us.” ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This too resonates with me regarding Babel:

Salman Rushdie Has a New Book, and a Message: ‘Words Are the Only Victors’
Nearly six months after he was brutally attacked, Rushdie is recovering and releasing a new novel, with the literary world rallying to his side

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/books/salman-rushdie-recovery-new-book.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

This a bad book, with dangerously misguided ideas and twisted history.  

That Babel, a genre book, has you still thinking and arguing, and questioning yourself, history, the book itself, perhaps tells us the author has touched on some very sore spots, which may also mean that far from being a 'bad' book, it is a good one (though with flaws, as have most things whatever they may be)? Was it a painful read from the very first pages, all the way through?

I would be very interested in example from the book that have you saying the book is bad and has twisted history -- and is dangerous. I'm not sure what you are saying she says is actually what she writes. That language and religion are the first weapons used by nations who are determined to dominate another country that isn't theirs, is undisputed, yes? Even now, Putin is trying to employ both in his invasion of conquest of Ukraine.

Whether or not the Spanish believed entirely that it was god's will that the indigenous people accept the Roman cross -- even if they didn't know what they were saying -- and if they didn't killing them was god's will and justified -- it was still  part and parcel of conquering for Spain, in nombre de dios. They even named more than one killing ground "Nombre de Dios." Even Lawrence of Arabia wasn't quite as selfless in service to the Arabs as some may think: he certainly was about fame, or at least many of his colleagues and others thoughts so. Also I am certain that imperial states also very knowingly foment wars and divisions among those in the territories they are bent on dominating for their own own gain: arming Africans to prey on each other for the benefit of the Atlantic slave trade companies is not a fantasy.

I would be equally interested in examples of books that are not what you say Babel is.

This too resonates with me regarding Babel:

Salman Rushdie Has a New Book, and a Message: ‘Words Are the Only Victors’
Nearly six months after he was brutally attacked, Rushdie is recovering and releasing a new novel, with the literary world rallying to his side

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/books/salman-rushdie-recovery-new-book.html

I would be equally interested also in your opinion as where a a novel such as Age of Vice, by Deepiti Kapoor, just published here, would fall on your spectrum of what shouldn't be published because of being "twisted history" and "misguided ideas." 

 

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

This too resonates with me regarding Babel:

Salman Rushdie Has a New Book, and a Message: ‘Words Are the Only Victors’
Nearly six months after he was brutally attacked, Rushdie is recovering and releasing a new novel, with the literary world rallying to his side

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/books/salman-rushdie-recovery-new-book.html

Rushdie would be on my side! 

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

In terms of your declaration Babel is a novel w/o joy (what about all the fun the friends have during the course of the novel?) or hope, it might be interesting for you to consider this conclusion of today's NYT piece on the Haitian artist, Myrlande Constant, in tandem with the conclusion of Babel", particularly considering with which character we seeing continuing on into the future. (The author of the piece is a friend, and we have met Constant many times over the course of our lives.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/arts/design/myrlande-constant-haiti-vodou.html

 

Was there fun? It seemed like a brief glimmer of light in the face of endless darkness.  But, OK, there is a little bit of fun and even a candle of attraction that might kindle into love before being brutally extinguished at both ends.

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

 

I would be equally interested also in your opinion as where a a novel such as Age of Vice, by Deepiti Kapoor, just published here, would fall on your spectrum of what shouldn't be published because of being "twisted history" and "misguided ideas."

To be clear, I'm not making a strong or weak argument for censorship.  But free speech means the freedom to denounce bad ideas.  

More to come...

Edited by Gaston de Foix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

21 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

To be clear, I'm not making a strong or weak argument for censorship.  But free speech means the freedom to denounce bad ideas.  

More to come...

Lookin forward to it!  And for me to be clear I do think there are very dangerous books out there that do indeed twist history, fiction and non-fiction -- not to mention movies and computer/video games, which are far more widely saturating societies and cultures than any books ever have.

Still, that's how literature began in the first place: let's make a case for our great and splendid and most perfect Charlemagne fighting Saracens, going to Jerusalem etc. -- when he never went to Jerusalem, and the 'Saracens' he fought, he was fighting for pay and booty, on behalf of other Saracens, not for Jerusalem on earth.  And there are thousands of other examples, including the Tudors and Arthur, and the Plantangents and Arthur too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Zorral said:

And there are thousands of other examples, including the Tudors and Arthur, and the Plantangents and Arthur too.

Out of interest, what was so wrong about the pushing of the Arthur myth? It is a tragedy of heroic but doomed defence against invaders, carried out by a group of people with high ideals, where the bad guys are the people who were the ones then living in England and hearing the myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A wilding said:

wrong about the pushing of the Arthur myth

Not 'wrong', but a lie and propaganda to consolidate power to itself over England's neighbors.  Arthur, in as much as the mythology (there is no history) existed prior to the French Romance poets,  Kings Edwards I and III, and Henry VII, is the matter of Wales. So the English, who were invaders and determined conquerors of Wales (as well as Scotland Ireland) stole something that wasn't English as English, in order to prop up a new family, as with Edward, and dynasty as with Henry, their tenuous legitimacy to England's throne and power. This is how the dynastic position, called "Prince of Wales" came into being, which included what is now valued as billions of property in Wales for the English crown.  This is how conquerors and imperialists and colonialism operates.  This information btw, is basic history, not in the least arcane. It is heavily documented even in popular biographies such as A Great and Terrible King, and The Winter King 

~~~~~~~~~~~

R.F. Kuang Is Curious About Something …
The author of “Babel” likes to raise questions that bother her — ones she hopes will bother her readers too.
January, 26, 2023
Inside the Best Seller List

“Some key words that I think about a lot are ‘postcolonialism,’ ‘diaspora,’ ‘migration,’ ‘translation’ and ‘transnationalism,’” Kuang said. “It’s really fun stuff! I’m making it sound dryer than it is.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/books/review/babel-r-f-kuang.html

Quote

 

At two different points during a 20-minute phone interview, R.F. Kuang used the word “annoying” to describe herself. First, the fantasy writer said, “I’m one of those annoying people who’s deeply influenced by the 2012 film adaptation of ‘Les Miz’”; later, she admitted that she was “the annoying friend who read a history of Marseille” on the way to a writing retreat in France.

“And then when we landed, I was like, ‘You guys know that it was the first Greek outpost in France?” Kuang laughed. “I’m unbearable.”

But she doesn’t come across as annoying or unbearable, just inquisitive. That spirit spills into her latest best-selling novel, “Babel,” which grapples with student revolutions, colonial resistance and, as Kuang puts it, the ways in which “translation and the acquisition of knowledge about various languages served as a tool of empire.” She went on, “When we think about the technologies of empire and colonialism, we usually think of guns and ships. But in what ways has the understanding of knowledge — or the knowledge of languages of people that are in colonized territories — enhanced or exacerbated the brutalities of colonial rule?”

Hearing this, it makes perfect sense that Kuang was an insatiable bookworm when she was growing up in Dallas. “I was really addicted to reading,” she said. “I had to read while I was eating or I would get bored. Even when I was in the bathroom I would reach for the shampoo bottles and read the back label just to have something to process.” 

After her tour for “Babel,” Kuang returned to her second year as a Ph.D. student in the department of East Asian languages and literature at Yale. Now she’s gearing up for her next novel, “Yellowface,” which comes out in May. “Not to give away the plot twist,” Kuang said, “but it does deal a lot with underpaid, undervalued, entry-level employees in publishing, and how high the barrier of entry is for diverse editors, people in marketing and people in sales, to get through the door.”

She turned in a draft to HarperCollins before its union members went on strike in November. But in the lead-up to the dispute, Kuang said, she had many conversations with her publishing team, “especially the junior-level folk who were working on the book.” She heard “horror stories about how they’d been treated, about how they were paid, about how they’d been discriminated against, and all of that went into the book.” Kuang, who co-hosted a rally in support of the union, said it’s “ironic and sad” that “Yellowface” is teed up to enter the world while the strike is ongoing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Zorral said:

 

 

Lookin forward to it!  And for me to be clear I do think there are very dangerous books out there that do indeed twist history, fiction and non-fiction -- not to mention movies and computer/video games, which are far more widely saturating societies and cultures than any books ever have.

Still, that's how literature began in the first place: let's make a case for our great and splendid and most perfect Charlemagne fighting Saracens, going to Jerusalem etc. -- when he never went to Jerusalem, and the 'Saracens' he fought, he was fighting for pay and booty, on behalf of other Saracens, not for Jerusalem on earth.  And there are thousands of other examples, including the Tudors and Arthur, and the Plantangents and Arthur too.

I don't remember stuff about Charlemagne going to Jerusalem in Einhard but I'll take your word for it (unless it was in the Chanson de Roland?).  There's a word for all those medieval vita - hagiography.  Those biographies were written to hold up an ideal, to support the legitimacy of political dynasties, to preach Christian sacral kingship and a hundred other political and theological purposes.  

Real history is based on evidence and sources.  I will write a longer post later today responding to your thoughtful points.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Not 'wrong', but a lie and propaganda to consolidate power to itself over England's neighbors.  Arthur, in as much as the mythology (there is no history) existed prior to the French Romance poets,  Kings Edwards I and III, and Henry VII, is the matter of Wales. So the English, who were invaders and determined conquerors of Wales (as well as Scotland Ireland) stole something that wasn't English as English, in order to prop up a new family, as with Edward, and dynasty as with Henry, their tenuous legitimacy to England's throne and power. This is how the dynastic position, called "Prince of Wales" came into being, which included what is now valued as billions of property in Wales for the English crown.  This is how conquerors and imperialists and colonialism operates.  This information btw, is basic history, not in the least arcane. It is heavily documented even in popular biographies such as A Great and Terrible King, and The Winter King 

I agree up to a point, but I have difficulty with describing the consolidation of the UK into a single political unit as "colonialism" pure and simple. However much it was achieved by military force and propaganda. This consolidation is, after all, something that has taken place in many other European countries.

In the UK here is a scale between Ireland (most definitely a separate country), Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and finally Northern and Eastern England (which were heavily Scandinavian at one point). The extent to which Wales was a separate country is slightly questionable - as a Welsh relative once told me, "the Scots know that they are a separate nation, the Welsh ... are not sure".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, A wilding said:

I agree up to a point

Nevertheless Wales fought hard for centuries against English rulership, law and language, as they did against that of Rome and the Nordic invaders, whom they did successful repel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I don't remember stuff about Charlemagne going to Jerusalem

He did NOT go to Jerusalem -- paid troubadours to bolster standing as emperor, for both the ill-fated dynasty and kingdoms, did that, as in le voyage de Charlemagne à Jérusalem et à Constantinople. Other works praising his warfare for Christianity against Muslims such as Chapter 3 Charlemagne on the Road to Santiago in the Liber Sancti Jacobi and the Karlamagnús Saga were particularly useful for propagandizing for the Crusades into the Near East.  Derek Wilson's Charlemagne: A Biography (2006) provides a particularly detailed account of how minstrels, poets, historians (churchmen, of course), were utilized (ordered and paid) to sing of him in these Matters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, A wilding said:

I agree up to a point, but I have difficulty with describing the consolidation of the UK into a single political unit as "colonialism" pure and simple. However much it was achieved by military force and propaganda. This consolidation is, after all, something that has taken place in many other European countries.

In the UK here is a scale between Ireland (most definitely a separate country), Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and finally Northern and Eastern England (which were heavily Scandinavian at one point). The extent to which Wales was a separate country is slightly questionable - as a Welsh relative once told me, "the Scots know that they are a separate nation, the Welsh ... are not sure".

Attitudes in Wales are complex, in the sense that there are some very different demographics with different views. In the 2021 census, 55.2% of the Welsh population gave Welsh as their only national identity. 18.5% of the population gave their identity as British only. 

Because of my language interests, I come into contact with quite a lot of Cymry Cymraeg (Welsh-speaking Welsh). These are certainly among the 55.2%, but alongside them are also hundreds of thousands of non-Welsh speakers in the south who see themselves as Welsh through and through, and largely seem to build their lives around the triumphs and disasters of the national sports teams. 

Strong English elements will be found in the marches, amongst people in the north-east who live in Wales for the cheap housing and commute into Cheshire or Merseyside, and amongst the retirees and second home owners in the west (the latter of whom recently became liable for 250% council tax). 

The strength of the answer you get as to whether Wales is a separate country will depend largely on whom the speaker thinks his or her audience is, but I think that more people - a majority of people - would say yes, if asked, than before Covid, and certainly before devolution. There's a Welsh Parliament, a Welsh National Library, plus the sports teams, two Welsh National Theatres (one Cymraeg, one not), a capital city that looks and acts like a capital (i.e. everyone complains because Cardiff gets all the money and attention), an anthem that mentions gwlad (country/land) every other word, plus multiple other daily reminders of distinctiveness, the question isn't so much whether Wales is a country, but in what way and to what extent. 

In terms of colonialism...to adapt an old quote: the greatest trick colonialism ever pulled was convincing the colonised it didn't exist? 

The Welsh language and culture Cymraeg1 is still strongest in the upland areas – basically the poor areas where you can't grow anything except sheep. This is because the Normans took over all the nice fertile lands around Gwent, Glamorgan and Pembroke. 

Henry Tudor borrowed the Welsh icon of the red dragon and the prophecy of the Mab Darogan to help him in his campaign to win the throne of England. (He landed in Milford Haven and marched his army through the centre of Wales en route to Warwickshire.) So far so good, but he did nothing for Wales, and it was his son Henry VIII that brought in the Laws in Wales Acts. These extended the legal system of England to Wales, and made English its language. They also said that anyone carrying out public office had to do so in English. 

Colonialism also gets a bit lost under the general weight of capitalist exploitation. e.g. the miners driving on the industrial revolution, and being paid in tokens that they were only allowed to spend in pit villages owned by the same people that owned the mines. For other highlights: Aberfan and the National Coal Board2; Tryweryn. 

1. Cymraeg = Welsh, meaning the Welsh language or related to the Welsh language; Cymreig = Welsh, meaning culturally Welsh

2. On second thoughts, I'm not sure how to categorise Aberfan. The National Coal Board was created by the Attlee government. The general contempt for the lives of Welsh children could be ascribed to a variety of factors, including psychopathy and greed.

Edited by dog-days
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dog-days said:

In terms of colonialism...to adapt an old quote: the greatest trick colonialism ever pulled was convincing the colonised it didn't exist? 

Ya -- the Native Peoples here in colonial, Jacksonian, Civil War, post Civil War North America were not and still are not buying into that.  Assimilation?  just another word for colonialism and erasure.

As a new book, Against the World by Tara Zahra (2023) describes

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/books/review/against-the-world-tara-zahra.html

Quote

 

Picture it: a parade of men from all over the world, wearing their national attire and clambering into a giant papier-mâché “melting pot,” only to emerge minutes later dressed in American-style suits and derby hats while singing “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

It sounds like something out of a musical, but this was a real event, one that took place on multiple occasions during the first decades of the 20th century. The men were graduates from the Ford Motor Company’s English School, immigrant employees who had been tutored in a new way of life. Total assimilation was the goal. “Our one great aim is to impress these men that they are, or should be, Americans,” one executive explained, “and that former racial, national and linguistic differences are to be forgotten.”

As the historian Tara Zahra shows in her lively and ambitious new book, “Against the World,” the melting pot ceremony was also an encapsulation of Henry Ford’s own contradictory attitudes toward the world outside of America’s borders. Ford was a profit-seeking industrialist, so he relied on immigrant labor when it was expedient, and he expected the world to be his market. At the same time, he was a virulent nationalist, railing against global finance and “the Jews.” He published antisemitic tracts, including the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in his newspaper. Ford’s bigotry was so extravagant that Hitler singled him out for lavish praise in “Mein Kampf.” ....

 

 

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished reading The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden's White House.  A sympathetic, insidery first draft of history with considerable cooperation from Ron Klain. 

Apart from the insight into Biden's mind, and takes on the personalities (Jill Biden = awesome), (Kamala = work in progress), the three big topics are (1) BBB (why did it fall apart, how did it get resurrected, was a bigger bill possible?), (2) Afghanistan (wtf) and (3) Ukraine (a surprising success story).  New details/reveals on all these topics, but overall a slender and only convincing in parts story.  We need the Biden WH to get the Peter Baker treatment.  

1. BBB: the revelation that Biden and Manchin struck a deal for $1.75 billion deal makes clear just how costly the progressive (and WH) insistence on linking those two bills were, as well as Manchin's mercuriality, and the cost of wasted time.  The Biden WH is getting lots of plaudits for its unexpectedly successful legislative victories.  And, yes, results are what count and its an impressive set of achievements easily outstripping Obama.  But they didn't even get it close to perfect.  The statement blaming Manchin was dumb.  The progressives should have been corralled because they had no choice, and quickly.  Biden flinched repeatedly from doing so. 

2.  Afghanistan.  This is the clusterfuck to rival all clusterfucks.  Of the many telling details and the brazen finger-pointing between State and CIA, the one that haunts me is the simplest.  Why didn't the US wait to withdraw until the fighting season was over? A winter withdrawal would have slowed or stopped the Taliban advance for a number of months.  It was an old man's folly, impatient to withdraw by the 20th anniversary of 9/11.  The Afghan people continue to pay the price. 

3. Ukraine.  Ukraine is in fact a great fo-po success for the US, born of Ukrainian courage and Putin's miscalculation, even if Whipple had no reason to recycle Biden's bullshit story about telling Putin he had no soul when he was VP (If you believe that Biden, one of the greatest braggarts/suck-up artists ever to serve in the US Senate, said that to Putin, god help you).   Still success has a thousand fathers, and though it is too soon to know the outcome, there is credit to spare. 

Worth reading, if only because there is actually so little reporting on the Biden WH.  The author is not a seasoned political reporter, but the author of a  well-regarded book on the office of WHCOS.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter got me Hail Mary by Andy Weir for Christmas.  She had been reading The Martian for a school project, and thought I might like the author.  Since I had never read The Martian (nor seen the movie), I decided to read that first.  I enjoyed it, but even though I'm an engineer, I found myself glazing over at some of the technical parts.  I also found the unwavering optimism and good humor of the protagonist, Mark Watney to be a bit unbelievable - not to mention the fact that he is pretty much good at everything.  

So, now that I'm through The Martian, I have started Hail Mary.  And...I could swear that the main character is an exact carbon copy of Watney from The Martian. I'm enjoying the basic premise, and I'm interested in where the general story goes.  But I don't think Andy Weir is a particularly good writer.  The books seem to follow the pattern of "present an incredibly challenging technical problem to solve, have a bunch of engineering and scientific solutions to step through, and wrap that with paper-thin plotting and character development".  

We'll see if after this one I care enough to read his other book...Artemis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HokieStone said:

My daughter got me Hail Mary by Andy Weir for Christmas.  She had been reading The Martian for a school project, and thought I might like the author.  Since I had never read The Martian (nor seen the movie), I decided to read that first.  I enjoyed it, but even though I'm an engineer, I found myself glazing over at some of the technical parts.  I also found the unwavering optimism and good humor of the protagonist, Mark Watney to be a bit unbelievable - not to mention the fact that he is pretty much good at everything.  

So, now that I'm through The Martian, I have started Hail Mary.  And...I could swear that the main character is an exact carbon copy of Watney from The Martian. I'm enjoying the basic premise, and I'm interested in where the general story goes.  But I don't think Andy Weir is a particularly good writer.  The books seem to follow the pattern of "present an incredibly challenging technical problem to solve, have a bunch of engineering and scientific solutions to step through, and wrap that with paper-thin plotting and character development".  

We'll see if after this one I care enough to read his other book...Artemis.

So what I'm taking away from this is...watch the movie instead? Will anyone who has done both (or just watched the movie) care to weigh in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

So what I'm taking away from this is...watch the movie instead? Will anyone who has done both (or just watched the movie) care to weigh in?


My opinion: Andy Weir absolutely cannot do characterisation. The Martian works because the interest is in the central issue of Watney's survival and in the various problems that need to be surmounted to achieve it. Especially as the technical details are nearly all totally correct. The characters are mostly highly trained astronauts or scientists doing their stuff (and occasionally sticking two fingers up at authority) and so don't need to have much psychological depth.

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1536/

So both the book and the film are good. Perhaps the film edges it if you don't know so much about (or aren't interested in) the technology behind space travel.

I was unimpressed by both of Weir's subsequent books through, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This week I finished listening to David McCullough read his best-selling history of the Revolutionary War, 1776.  I found it...a little sparse?

I read it when it first came out to much fanfare, and I can see the hard copy on my bookshelves here in this room where I am writing this.  My memory of that first exposure was that is was a tremendous read.  But this week I found myself asking if that was all there was to it?

There isn't anything wrong with the book, and as far as I know the story is straight and true.  But for some reason, it just seemed to lack much depth of field.  Things happen, and people take action, but the reasons behind it and the figures in the foreground all seem somewhat pale and bare.

Maybe in the intervening years I have read histories with different approaches that suited me better, but I felt like McCullough fails to really tell us anything insightful about any of the characters that we didn't learn in grade school history classes.

He hasn't included all of the Americana myths, of course, but perhaps the facts included in the excerpts from their letters home is not really a suitable replacement for the "truths" incorporated in the fanciful stories about the participants?  Honestly, I feel like the book could have benefitted from a comparo between the myths surrounding some of the characters and the reality as we know it from contemporary sources.  At least such a debunking would have given the book some color.

Furthermore, the brief glimpses of the British viewpoint are so cursory as to be almost without context with British or European politics.

Perhaps the fact that the Revolutionary forces weren't very good at military activities or discipline makes it difficult to like or empathize with them, and perhaps it is because even the big actions of the year-long period of the book's scope are generally inconclusive, but the narrative arc is also very shallow.  Which is amazing given that the "climax" of the action is Washington crossing the Delaware, which ought to be amazing:

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/92/9278ed107148557036cd400a7891351f04e723a878f1a0e0cd313f61593255f8.jpg

But it is also relatively staid and without much more punch than any of what has gone before.  I feel like a need a rich, gossipy re-telling of the Revolutionary War in its entirety to coat my palate in thick, sticky relationships and infighting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...