Books Included in this Update:
- Only Yesterday, Frederick Lewis Allen
- Since Yesterday, Frederick Lewis Allen
- The Appeal, John Grisham
- The Center Cannot Hold, Harry Turtledove
- The Victorious Opposition, Harry Turtledove
- Return Engagement, Harry Turtledove
- Drive to the East, Harry Turtledove
- The Grapple, Harry Turtledove
I've waited a while to write this, as it will be my last library-related post from the University of Montevallo. At 3 PM today, I will have to vacate Napier and leave Montevallo behind. While I did not read nearly as much during the school year as I did in the summer leading up to my return, I did read quite a bit. As you can see from the listed books above, my reading for the past month or so has been dominated by schoolwork or the Turtledove series.
The Frederick Lewis Allen books come from my historiography class, where we examined history as an area of study. One of our assignments was a book review, and I asked to review The Making of the Middle Ages by R.W. Southern. I did not find the book all that interesting, as it was mostly about the development of the Christian church -- and I have zero interest in that, really. So I asked my professor if I could switch to another book. He gamely agreed, and I read Only Yesterday by Frederick Lewis Allen. Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s is a book that I started reading last term, but never finished. (I did, however, mention the book in one of these posts.)
Allen was an amateur historian working for Harpers magazine: his book is not written for academics, but for popular consumption. As such, his style is informal. In the prelude this is mildly annoying, but as the book progressed I found I liked it. Allen published this in 1931, so it was fairly recent. You can read the book online -- which is where I read it -- here.
The book moves through the 1920s, topic by topic. Some topics include the rise of crime (thanks in part to Prohibition), the rising hemlines, and the Red Scare. The topics themselves are smartly arranged chronologically, and Allen is careful to refresh the reader's memory from time to time to ensure that she or he is getting the broader perspective. It's a nice touch, I think. It was this book that my first university-level history instructor recommended to me when I asked him for book suggestions regarding the 1920s and 1930s in the United States, and I pass the recommendation on to you.
I commented in my review for class that Allen's tone may have changed had he written this book ten years later, after the Depression was revealed to have been a long-term issue for the world and not just a temporary panic. In order to see if this was the case, I checked out Allen's sequel to the book, aptly named Since Yesterday. This book follows the same style and has the same inherent readability, so I again recommend it to those of you who have an interest in this era. The style is very informal, but not so much that the reader would feel insulted. The only dull part of the books I remember is a chapter on land speculation in Florida in Only Yesterday. The chapter about the Bull Market wasn't all that interesting, either, but then again I am not an economic historian or even a student of economic history. My favorite kind of history is social history, and these books provide that.
I received John Grisham's The Appeal for my birthday. Grisham is a favorite author of mine, although I'm not exactly alone in claiming that. The Appeal, as you might be able to guess from the title, is based in the field of law -- which is a return for Grisham. His early works (A Time to Kill, The Firm, The Pelican Brief, etc) were all legal "thrillers", but then he started varying from that with titles like A Painted House, Skipping Christmas, and Playing for Pizza. That didn't hurt him, as far as I'm concerned. All of those non-legal books are well-written and entertaining as well. What follows is an introduction to the book, not a plot summary. The Appeal is principally about a chemical company that has been caught disposing of toxic chemical byproducts in ravines, poisoning the water table and giving the county the name of "Cancer County". The chemical company is sued by a married law couple, who nearly go into bankruptcy trying to afford the costs of the trial. The chemical company pins its hopes on a successful appeal -- to a friendly court. This is where the book's drama really begins, as people working on behalf of the chemical company will attempt to influence local elections to affect a change in the make-up of that court: specifically, attempting to replace a moderate judge with a conservative one. I'm not sure what Grisham's intention was with this book, other than entertainment. I personally think that it conveys a message about the power of corporations and the danger of easily-influenced voters.
I also continued reading the so-called 'Southern Victory" series by Harry Turtledove. Since Turtledove's style is about the same throughout the series, I won't bother commenting on each book one by one. Turtledove's style, you might remember, is to tell the story through the eyes of viewpoint characters. The characters in this part of the series are varied -- legislators, soldiers, sailors, dictators, death camp commandants, civilians caught in the middle, etc. The only comment I will provide other than a plot summary is that while there were sex scenes in the first three or four books, Turtledove eases off on them later on. Turtledove's sex could never match Jean M. Auel's caveman erotica, but it was still a bit strange. The later books are all about social history and military conflict. I left off at the end of the Great War. Considering the progress I've made since, it's pathetic that it has taken me this long to bother writing. If you plan to read this series and do not want anything to be spoiled, read no more.
Blood and Iron finishes the Great War. The United States and Germany are victorious, and inflict brutal peace terms on their vanquished foes. I rather enjoyed seeing the South get the same harsh treatment as Germany did in the real world, and seeing the same results -- the rise of radicalism, which is where The Center Cannot Hold probably gets its name from. As people living in France and the Confederacy deal with crippling inflation and the indignity of Versailles-like treaty conditions, they become easy prey for demagogues. Far-right conservatives seize power in Britain, France, and the Confederacy, and the world is pushed toward war.
Jake Featherston, Turtledove's answer to reality's Hitler, remilitarizes the south and prepares the Confederates for a war with the United States. There's a difference between the two, because the South (or Germany in the real world) could have rearmed without going to war. Turtledove's road to war follows the "real" road to war pretty closely. At the beginning of the 1940s (in Return Engagement) Featherston declares war against the United States and moves in, winning early victories. He fails to force the United States to capitulate, though, and is left with a war. (The Drive East, The Grapple). Even as he is fighting the United States, he is also engaged in a "final solution" of his own. During the Great War, a red revolution instigated by ill-treated blacks drained some Confederate troops from the front line. The United States would have emerged victorious regardless, but because of the "revolution", it was easy for Confederates to blame blacks for their woes. Finding a scapegoat is always easy.
The war is currently going south for the South. Every world power is trying to develop the bomb: the United States and Germany seem to be closest. I only have one book left in the series, and I believe I will be starting it this next week. I don't know what the result will be, but I'm rooting for the Confederacy's utter destruction.
Pick of the Week: Only Yesterday, Frederick Lewis Allen
Upcoming Reads:
- In To the Death, Harry Turtledove
- Daily Life in Rome
- The Roman Way
- Modern Germany
- France Since 1815
- History of the Ancient World
Friday, May 2, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
This Week at the Library (23/3)
Books Included in this Update:
The Great War: Breakthrough by Harry Turtledove
Blood and Iron by Harry Turtledove
Science Firsts by Robert Adler
Darwin's Ghost by Steve Jones
Palestine: Peace not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter
The Bicentennial Man and Other Stories by Isaac Asimov
Star Trek Academy: Collision Course by William Shatner
The Making of the Middle Ages by R.W. Southern
I’ve just returned from spring break, having spent the last week in Selma. I purposely did not bring my computer with me, and so was able to get a great deal of reading done. Most of my reading came from the Selma/Dallas County public library, but I also had a book from the university library and a couple lent to me from a friend. As I strolled through the stacks last Saturday, I saw many books I read last year. Two old favorites were Theories for Everything and Carl Sagan’s Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. I did not check those out, though: this week’s reading is as ever all new.
I began and ended the week with the next two books in Harry Turtledove’s “Southern Victory” alternate history series. The first, entitled The Great War: Breakthrough, ended the Great War of the series. Turtledove’s Great War saw the United States, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire face off against Great Britain, France, and the Confederate States of America. After enjoying decades of global dominance, the three allied powers declare war on the “Quadruple Entente” and find themselves surprised by the military readiness of the United States and German Empire. Both the United States and Germany make great strides in the beginning of the war, but it like our own Great War develops into trench warfare. Turtledove develops the various powers’ technologies essentially the same way they were developed in real life, but I noticed some differences. In the real Great War, air bombing had no real effect. The Germans bombed London with their Gothas, but those raids did no actual damage. In the books, though, Richmond is mentioned as being gutted by American bombers.
The “breakthrough” mentioned is an American/German breakthrough. This is not a spoiler, as an American/German victory is nearly guaranteed by virtue of their preparedness and superior numbers. The Great War: Breakthrough is the story of how the Great War came to an end. A week later, I read Blood and Iron, the next book in the series. Blood and Iron picks up at the conclusion of the Great War. The United States gain Canada (except for Quebec, which the US Government declares free), and the German Empire gains some portions of France. (Those portions aren’t mentioned, but I’m assuming Alsace-Lorraine and France’s colonies.) Both victorious powers impose massive reparations on their defeated foes, and the Confederate and French economies tank. This allows for the rise of extremists. A student of history can easily see the patterns that Turtledove has picked up from real history. The books continue to entertain me. As mentioned prior, the story is told through the eyes of viewpoint characters -- a Canadian farmer, a Confederate artillery sergeant turned political reactionary, a Union airman turned lawyer, a Southern aristocrat trying to find a place for herself in the new industrial world, and so on. Some of the characters (like the Canadian farmer Lucien Galtier ) are favorites, while I root for misfortune to visit others (like Roger Kimball, formerly a Confederate submarine commander and war criminal). My opinion toward some characters has changed as those characters have developed. Gordon McSweeney, for instance, is a Union -- that is, American -- officer who I initially despised because he was such a religious fundamentalist who constantly judged and lectured the people around him based on his religious beliefs. As the books wear on, though, I find myself impressed by some of the things he does. I think a character like this -- who can inspire both loathing and admiration -- is an indication of good writing. He’s hardly Severus Snape, though. I should mention that Turtledove depicts his characters’ sex lives rather explicitly, reminding me of Jean M. Auel’s “Earth’s Children” series, which are sometimes described as “caveman porn”. Auel is far more sensual, though -- when Turtledove’s characters go at it, they go at it like crazed chimps most of the time.
When I visited the Selma library, I decided that I wanted to read some science. I’ve been immersed in history since August, and while I have read a few science books since coming to Montevallo, I haven’t read nearly as many as I would like. As I browsed for books, I came across Science Firsts. I have checked this book out before, though I did not manage to read the book, for whatever reason. Its full title is Science Firsts: From the Creation of Science to the Science of Creation. The book, written by Robert E. Adler, was published in 2002. The book is composed of dozens of short chapters: each chapter is about a person who made a great contribution to scientific theory. (Carl Sagan, sadly, is neglected. His first wife is mentioned, though.) Some of the names -- Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein -- are familiar. Some are lesser known, like van Leeuwenhoek and Lavoisier. Others I had never heard of before -- Mendeleev and Raymond Dart are two unfamiliar names that I wrote down. The book is concerned only with contributions made only to western science, so aside from one Islamic scholar all of the names are European or classical. To be able to explain each scientist’s contribution must require a broad general knowledge of science in general, so I am impressed with the book’s author. Some chapters were easy for me to digest, but others -- those about my weak points (chemistry and genetics, primarily) were more difficult. I can recommend it easily, though.
Next I read a little science fiction -- Isaac Asimov’s The Bicentennial Man and Other Stories. I checked this book out because I like Asimov’s short story collections so much. In the editions that the Selma library has, each story is introduced by Asimov in a few paragraphs, as he explains how it came to be and so on. I’ve mentioned this before, but Asimov’s wonderful personality comes through in these introductory passages, and makes the book so very pleasant to read. This particular collection is chiefly concerned with robotics; the majority of the stories are about robots and androids. Incidently, the book’s title story -- “The Bicentennial Man” -- was made into a movie about eight years ago. It starred Robin Williams, and being the fan of Williams that I am I was quick to watch it. Afterwards I checked out the book I thought the movie was based on, called The Positronic Man. The book turned out to be different, but very enjoyable. That was one of the first Asimov books I ever read, although I did read one or two of his books relating to astronomy and cosmology in high school. I’ll mention some of the stories to pique your interest: one, “Waterclap”, is about a feud between a city on Earth’s moon and a city on the ocean floor of Earth competing for funds from the council that governs the Earth. “The Winnowing” looks at an attempt by some scientists to avoid massive starvation and war by introducing a virus to the Earth’s population -- a virus that causes a pleasant, sleep-like death. “Tercentenary Incident” is set in 2076, where the United States is celebrating its 300th birthday. The President and his android lookalike are both attending the festivities, and then one of them is disintegrated -- but which?
My next book was also in the realm of science fiction. I happened upon this book purely by accident -- I was looking for another, and happened to see Star Trek Academy: Collision Course by William Shatner. Shatner -- famous for portraying Captain James T. Kirk in Star Trek and its related movies -- has written other science fiction books, a number of them set in the universe of Star Trek. His Star Trek-related books center around Kirk, which I can hardly blame him for. Some fans label Shatner’s Trek books as being set in the “Shatnerverse”. I enjoyed Shatner’s previous contributions well enough, though. Shatner undoubtedly wrote this book to take advantage of renewed interest in the Kirk/Spock era, which is the result of the upcoming Star Trek movie set in that same era. The book is about James Kirk and Spock, whose lives intersect for the first time in San Francisco. As they pursue their own individual goals, they happen to come across one another and are forced to work together. It’s also very Shatnerverse-y: Kirk and Spock steal the Enterprise in part of the book. This seems almost gratuitous to me. The book ends as their friendship begins, but it looks to be part of a series. The book itself was published only very recently -- at the end of 2007 -- so it may be a while before the second book arrives in store shelves.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, classics are books that people praise but don’t read. As I paced through the library stacks looking for a book to read, I kept stopping at the shelf holding Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. On various occasions, I picked the book up and read portions of it, only to put it back up. It is a classic book that I do want to read, but since it is a science book it will be well out of date by now and I do not see the point in reading it if that is the case. When Darwin wrote the book, he had no idea of genetics --how useful can a book on evolution be without genetics? What I needed, I thought, was a book like The Origin of Species that was more up to date. My eyes fell upon Darwin’s Ghost, another book on the shelf. I pulled it out. It read: Darwin’s Ghost: Darwin’s Origin of Species, Updated.
Well, hot damn. Take that, people who don’t believe in coincidences. I poked my head in and was informed that the author was regarded as “the British Carl Sagan”. Well, that did it. I checked the book out and immediately began to read it. Darwin’s Ghost was written in 1999 by Steve Jones and is an attempt to present The Origin of Species’ argument using modern language and arguments. Darwin’s layout and chapter titles and so forth are preserved -- Jones even uses Darwin’s closing arguments to end his own arguments, a sign of how close the two books are supposed to be. I found the book fascinating, and was encouraged by the fact that I was familiar with some of the examples used -- and that I could indeed understand a great deal of the book. Given my inability to understand anything beyond basic genetics -- a fault of mine that must be remedied, and soon -- my being able to understand a text on evolution cannot be taken for granted. If I were to recommend a book to someonearguing for evolution, I’ll stick with Eugenie Scott’s Evolution Vs. Creationism -- but this book was easy to read and quite understandable. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in science, and particularly evolutionary theory. There are a few brilliant quotations in here, two of which I wrote down. The first is from the book’s author, and the second is a quotation from Darwin:
“Evolution is to the social sciences as statues are to birds: a convenient platform upon which to deposit badly digested ideas.”
“The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.”
After this, I read President Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. President Carter introduces the characters in the Palestine conflict (Israel, the PLO, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt) and then gives a brief history of the conflict. The history section of the book is separated by US presidencies, which makes sense given Carter’s perspective. At the end of the book, Carter lists obstacles and solutions to achieving peace in the middle east. I wrote down some of it. The two chief obstacles are (1) Israel’s belief that seizing Palestinian land to avenge terrorists attacks is just or reasonable and (2) Palestinians turn terrorists into heroes. Carter’s solution: Israel’s right to exist must be guaranteed, internal strife in the Israeli government must stop, and the rights of Palestinians must be respected. That’s not all he said, but my notes aren’t legible.
I disagree with Carter when he lists chief obstacles. I’d like to see what the effect would be on Israel’s attitudes toward its neighbors if the United States were to stop giving them so much money. I suspect maybe that Little Abrahm might learn to play well with others if Little Abrahm weren’t constantly indulged and supported by Uncle Sam. The book was readable -- Carter’s style isn’t boring -- but as a secular person I was bothered by the very religious tones that pervade the book. I’ve read other books by Carter where religiosity was present but not annoying. I suppose with a book on Israel it couldn’t be helped, since the whole reason they’re THERE is because the Magic Book says they belong there and have a perfect right to kill people who won’t leave. As you can imagine, I take a rather dim view toward that attitude.
Moving on, though. The last book I read was R. W. Southern’s The Making of the Middle Ages. The book was published in 1958, which is well before historians and scientists started trying to popularize their books by presenting the materials in a way comprehensible to those who are not experts on the subject. While Southern’s style isn’t boring, it’s not all that readable either. After spending several days plodding through, I was afraid I was becoming burnt out on history. I tried reading other history books (ones I own) and found that this was not the case. The culprit was The Making of the Middle Ages. Southern explores Europe from 972 to 1204. He covers the organization of the Christian church, the introduction of logic to Christian theology, and the rise of serfs and knights. The chapter on serfs and knights -- entitled “Social Bonds” -- was interesting, but I found the ones on monasteries and theology to be quite dull. I don’t think is because I am not a religious person -- even as a fundamentalist I would have found chapters on theology boring. That’s probably why I’m no longer a fundamentalist, heh. The book seems to be well-received by people who read it, which is a bit worrisome. What did I miss? This is especially worrisome given that I’m to write a review of the book for my historiography class.
Pick of the Week: The decision is between Science Firsts and Blood and Iron. The former is a collection of delightful stories about science. The other is an alternative history tale where the United States and Germany triumph over the Confederacy and the European Powers that helped the traitorous Confederacy leave the Union in the first place. This is hardly fair. I will choose Science Firsts, however, because of my preference for nonfiction.
Next Week:
I will be reading more of the Turtledove series and probably starting on John Grisham’s latest novel, The Appeal. That reminds me: I read his next-to-latest novel (Playing for Pizza) over Christmas but neglected to write about it here -- I think.
The Great War: Breakthrough by Harry Turtledove
Blood and Iron by Harry Turtledove
Science Firsts by Robert Adler
Darwin's Ghost by Steve Jones
Palestine: Peace not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter
The Bicentennial Man and Other Stories by Isaac Asimov
Star Trek Academy: Collision Course by William Shatner
The Making of the Middle Ages by R.W. Southern
I’ve just returned from spring break, having spent the last week in Selma. I purposely did not bring my computer with me, and so was able to get a great deal of reading done. Most of my reading came from the Selma/Dallas County public library, but I also had a book from the university library and a couple lent to me from a friend. As I strolled through the stacks last Saturday, I saw many books I read last year. Two old favorites were Theories for Everything and Carl Sagan’s Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. I did not check those out, though: this week’s reading is as ever all new.
I began and ended the week with the next two books in Harry Turtledove’s “Southern Victory” alternate history series. The first, entitled The Great War: Breakthrough, ended the Great War of the series. Turtledove’s Great War saw the United States, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire face off against Great Britain, France, and the Confederate States of America. After enjoying decades of global dominance, the three allied powers declare war on the “Quadruple Entente” and find themselves surprised by the military readiness of the United States and German Empire. Both the United States and Germany make great strides in the beginning of the war, but it like our own Great War develops into trench warfare. Turtledove develops the various powers’ technologies essentially the same way they were developed in real life, but I noticed some differences. In the real Great War, air bombing had no real effect. The Germans bombed London with their Gothas, but those raids did no actual damage. In the books, though, Richmond is mentioned as being gutted by American bombers.
The “breakthrough” mentioned is an American/German breakthrough. This is not a spoiler, as an American/German victory is nearly guaranteed by virtue of their preparedness and superior numbers. The Great War: Breakthrough is the story of how the Great War came to an end. A week later, I read Blood and Iron, the next book in the series. Blood and Iron picks up at the conclusion of the Great War. The United States gain Canada (except for Quebec, which the US Government declares free), and the German Empire gains some portions of France. (Those portions aren’t mentioned, but I’m assuming Alsace-Lorraine and France’s colonies.) Both victorious powers impose massive reparations on their defeated foes, and the Confederate and French economies tank. This allows for the rise of extremists. A student of history can easily see the patterns that Turtledove has picked up from real history. The books continue to entertain me. As mentioned prior, the story is told through the eyes of viewpoint characters -- a Canadian farmer, a Confederate artillery sergeant turned political reactionary, a Union airman turned lawyer, a Southern aristocrat trying to find a place for herself in the new industrial world, and so on. Some of the characters (like the Canadian farmer Lucien Galtier ) are favorites, while I root for misfortune to visit others (like Roger Kimball, formerly a Confederate submarine commander and war criminal). My opinion toward some characters has changed as those characters have developed. Gordon McSweeney, for instance, is a Union -- that is, American -- officer who I initially despised because he was such a religious fundamentalist who constantly judged and lectured the people around him based on his religious beliefs. As the books wear on, though, I find myself impressed by some of the things he does. I think a character like this -- who can inspire both loathing and admiration -- is an indication of good writing. He’s hardly Severus Snape, though. I should mention that Turtledove depicts his characters’ sex lives rather explicitly, reminding me of Jean M. Auel’s “Earth’s Children” series, which are sometimes described as “caveman porn”. Auel is far more sensual, though -- when Turtledove’s characters go at it, they go at it like crazed chimps most of the time.
When I visited the Selma library, I decided that I wanted to read some science. I’ve been immersed in history since August, and while I have read a few science books since coming to Montevallo, I haven’t read nearly as many as I would like. As I browsed for books, I came across Science Firsts. I have checked this book out before, though I did not manage to read the book, for whatever reason. Its full title is Science Firsts: From the Creation of Science to the Science of Creation. The book, written by Robert E. Adler, was published in 2002. The book is composed of dozens of short chapters: each chapter is about a person who made a great contribution to scientific theory. (Carl Sagan, sadly, is neglected. His first wife is mentioned, though.) Some of the names -- Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein -- are familiar. Some are lesser known, like van Leeuwenhoek and Lavoisier. Others I had never heard of before -- Mendeleev and Raymond Dart are two unfamiliar names that I wrote down. The book is concerned only with contributions made only to western science, so aside from one Islamic scholar all of the names are European or classical. To be able to explain each scientist’s contribution must require a broad general knowledge of science in general, so I am impressed with the book’s author. Some chapters were easy for me to digest, but others -- those about my weak points (chemistry and genetics, primarily) were more difficult. I can recommend it easily, though.
Next I read a little science fiction -- Isaac Asimov’s The Bicentennial Man and Other Stories. I checked this book out because I like Asimov’s short story collections so much. In the editions that the Selma library has, each story is introduced by Asimov in a few paragraphs, as he explains how it came to be and so on. I’ve mentioned this before, but Asimov’s wonderful personality comes through in these introductory passages, and makes the book so very pleasant to read. This particular collection is chiefly concerned with robotics; the majority of the stories are about robots and androids. Incidently, the book’s title story -- “The Bicentennial Man” -- was made into a movie about eight years ago. It starred Robin Williams, and being the fan of Williams that I am I was quick to watch it. Afterwards I checked out the book I thought the movie was based on, called The Positronic Man. The book turned out to be different, but very enjoyable. That was one of the first Asimov books I ever read, although I did read one or two of his books relating to astronomy and cosmology in high school. I’ll mention some of the stories to pique your interest: one, “Waterclap”, is about a feud between a city on Earth’s moon and a city on the ocean floor of Earth competing for funds from the council that governs the Earth. “The Winnowing” looks at an attempt by some scientists to avoid massive starvation and war by introducing a virus to the Earth’s population -- a virus that causes a pleasant, sleep-like death. “Tercentenary Incident” is set in 2076, where the United States is celebrating its 300th birthday. The President and his android lookalike are both attending the festivities, and then one of them is disintegrated -- but which?
My next book was also in the realm of science fiction. I happened upon this book purely by accident -- I was looking for another, and happened to see Star Trek Academy: Collision Course by William Shatner. Shatner -- famous for portraying Captain James T. Kirk in Star Trek and its related movies -- has written other science fiction books, a number of them set in the universe of Star Trek. His Star Trek-related books center around Kirk, which I can hardly blame him for. Some fans label Shatner’s Trek books as being set in the “Shatnerverse”. I enjoyed Shatner’s previous contributions well enough, though. Shatner undoubtedly wrote this book to take advantage of renewed interest in the Kirk/Spock era, which is the result of the upcoming Star Trek movie set in that same era. The book is about James Kirk and Spock, whose lives intersect for the first time in San Francisco. As they pursue their own individual goals, they happen to come across one another and are forced to work together. It’s also very Shatnerverse-y: Kirk and Spock steal the Enterprise in part of the book. This seems almost gratuitous to me. The book ends as their friendship begins, but it looks to be part of a series. The book itself was published only very recently -- at the end of 2007 -- so it may be a while before the second book arrives in store shelves.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, classics are books that people praise but don’t read. As I paced through the library stacks looking for a book to read, I kept stopping at the shelf holding Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. On various occasions, I picked the book up and read portions of it, only to put it back up. It is a classic book that I do want to read, but since it is a science book it will be well out of date by now and I do not see the point in reading it if that is the case. When Darwin wrote the book, he had no idea of genetics --how useful can a book on evolution be without genetics? What I needed, I thought, was a book like The Origin of Species that was more up to date. My eyes fell upon Darwin’s Ghost, another book on the shelf. I pulled it out. It read: Darwin’s Ghost: Darwin’s Origin of Species, Updated.
Well, hot damn. Take that, people who don’t believe in coincidences. I poked my head in and was informed that the author was regarded as “the British Carl Sagan”. Well, that did it. I checked the book out and immediately began to read it. Darwin’s Ghost was written in 1999 by Steve Jones and is an attempt to present The Origin of Species’ argument using modern language and arguments. Darwin’s layout and chapter titles and so forth are preserved -- Jones even uses Darwin’s closing arguments to end his own arguments, a sign of how close the two books are supposed to be. I found the book fascinating, and was encouraged by the fact that I was familiar with some of the examples used -- and that I could indeed understand a great deal of the book. Given my inability to understand anything beyond basic genetics -- a fault of mine that must be remedied, and soon -- my being able to understand a text on evolution cannot be taken for granted. If I were to recommend a book to someonearguing for evolution, I’ll stick with Eugenie Scott’s Evolution Vs. Creationism -- but this book was easy to read and quite understandable. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in science, and particularly evolutionary theory. There are a few brilliant quotations in here, two of which I wrote down. The first is from the book’s author, and the second is a quotation from Darwin:
“Evolution is to the social sciences as statues are to birds: a convenient platform upon which to deposit badly digested ideas.”
“The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.”
After this, I read President Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. President Carter introduces the characters in the Palestine conflict (Israel, the PLO, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt) and then gives a brief history of the conflict. The history section of the book is separated by US presidencies, which makes sense given Carter’s perspective. At the end of the book, Carter lists obstacles and solutions to achieving peace in the middle east. I wrote down some of it. The two chief obstacles are (1) Israel’s belief that seizing Palestinian land to avenge terrorists attacks is just or reasonable and (2) Palestinians turn terrorists into heroes. Carter’s solution: Israel’s right to exist must be guaranteed, internal strife in the Israeli government must stop, and the rights of Palestinians must be respected. That’s not all he said, but my notes aren’t legible.
I disagree with Carter when he lists chief obstacles. I’d like to see what the effect would be on Israel’s attitudes toward its neighbors if the United States were to stop giving them so much money. I suspect maybe that Little Abrahm might learn to play well with others if Little Abrahm weren’t constantly indulged and supported by Uncle Sam. The book was readable -- Carter’s style isn’t boring -- but as a secular person I was bothered by the very religious tones that pervade the book. I’ve read other books by Carter where religiosity was present but not annoying. I suppose with a book on Israel it couldn’t be helped, since the whole reason they’re THERE is because the Magic Book says they belong there and have a perfect right to kill people who won’t leave. As you can imagine, I take a rather dim view toward that attitude.
Moving on, though. The last book I read was R. W. Southern’s The Making of the Middle Ages. The book was published in 1958, which is well before historians and scientists started trying to popularize their books by presenting the materials in a way comprehensible to those who are not experts on the subject. While Southern’s style isn’t boring, it’s not all that readable either. After spending several days plodding through, I was afraid I was becoming burnt out on history. I tried reading other history books (ones I own) and found that this was not the case. The culprit was The Making of the Middle Ages. Southern explores Europe from 972 to 1204. He covers the organization of the Christian church, the introduction of logic to Christian theology, and the rise of serfs and knights. The chapter on serfs and knights -- entitled “Social Bonds” -- was interesting, but I found the ones on monasteries and theology to be quite dull. I don’t think is because I am not a religious person -- even as a fundamentalist I would have found chapters on theology boring. That’s probably why I’m no longer a fundamentalist, heh. The book seems to be well-received by people who read it, which is a bit worrisome. What did I miss? This is especially worrisome given that I’m to write a review of the book for my historiography class.
Pick of the Week: The decision is between Science Firsts and Blood and Iron. The former is a collection of delightful stories about science. The other is an alternative history tale where the United States and Germany triumph over the Confederacy and the European Powers that helped the traitorous Confederacy leave the Union in the first place. This is hardly fair. I will choose Science Firsts, however, because of my preference for nonfiction.
Next Week:
I will be reading more of the Turtledove series and probably starting on John Grisham’s latest novel, The Appeal. That reminds me: I read his next-to-latest novel (Playing for Pizza) over Christmas but neglected to write about it here -- I think.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
This Week at the Library
'Twas in the days of '76, when freemen young and old
All fought for independence then, each hero brave and bold…
'Twas then the noble Stars and Stripes
In triumph did appear,
And defended by brave patriots,
The Yankee volunteers.
Books in this Update:
- 1776, David McCullough
- The Jerk with the Cell Phone, Barbara Pachter and Susan Magee
- Why Lincoln Matters, Mario Cuomo
- The Great War: Walk in Hell, Harry Turtledove
This week's reading began with David McCullough's 1776. This book's cover art caught my eye as I strode through the library one evening, and I paused to examine it. A quick perusal betrayed that the book had a readable tone and seemed interesting enough, so I checked it out along with a few others. 1776 is a book dealing a critical year of the American Revolution. McCullough tells the story of this year using source materials from American soldiers, loyalist civilians, and British officers. It is a very readable book, in my opinion -- I was able to finish it during a weekend away from the university. The book is divided into three parts (much like Gaul): The Siege, Fateful Summer, and The Long Retreat. For those unfamiliar with the way the Revolutionary War proceeded, it was actually a rather bleak affair for those hoping for an American victory. Washington spends much of the early part of the war either in retreat from the British army in an effort to keep his army intact or dealing with the American bureaucracy. What I appreciate about this book is that it shows both Washington's failings and his triumphs. I recommend 1776 heartily.
My next read was a very light one -- The Jerk with the Cell Phone: A Guide for the Rest Of Us, by Barbara Pachter and Susan Magee. This, as you might imagine, is a short book that complains about cell-phone addicts and offers tips for how to deal with them. The book explains the various types of cell-phone jerks and then offers vary information. There's really not that much to the book, but it is enjoyable enough to read if you find people yelling in their phones during dinner to be a tad disruptive.
My next book was a bit more serious. Why Lincoln Matters explores Lincoln's heritage and attempts to make connections between Lincoln's policy decisions and the policy decisions of presidents that claim to follow in his footsteps. The book is by Mario Cuomo, and the name struck me as being familiar for some reason -- a good reason, it turns out. He was once the governor of New York. Cuomo examines Lincoln's record on war, liberty, civil rights, the role of government, religion, race, and more. He then compares these to other president's records -- F. Roosevelt and George W. Bush are the two names that are mentioned most, and Bush most of all. Lincoln is not without his flaws, and this is the reason I enjoyed the book so. People tend to deify the man. In all I found the book to be quite interesting, and I recommend you give it a go if you are at all interested in the politics of Abraham Lincoln.
My last read for this week was Harry Turtledove's The Great War: Walk in Hell. Walk in Hell is third in a series of alternative history books. In the first two, the Confederacy succeeded in seceding with the help of Great Britain and France. When the Confederacy attempted to expand, the United States objected and the two European powers again intervened. Having learned its lesson at the end of the first book --- get allies, plan for wars carefully -- the United States adopt Prussian-style militarism and overall readiness, creating a General Staff of its own. The General Staff represented the German military elite. Only 40 officers a year were invited to join its ranks, and those invited had to enroll in a "War Academy" where they were trained to think like strategists. In the second book, the United States and Germany are thrown into war when their mutual ally (Austria) declares war on Serbia for it not completing kowtowing to Austrian demands. The Great War begins essentially as it began in real life, but this time the United States declare (not declares; US government has evolved differently) war on the Confederacy and the Dominion of Canada. The south is also weakened by a socialist revolution (the socialists being the heavily-abused blacks). As mentioned prior, technology advances in almost the same way in Turtledove's books.
I am shamelessly rooting for the United States and Germany, having absolutely no love for the Confederacy. As such, I was pleased to read of the south's woes and the United States' progress against its southern foe. The story is told through the eyes of viewpoint characters, all fictional. The viewpoint characters are varied -- Canadian farmers, southern aristocrats, socialist revolutionaries, United States navy men, and so on. Very few infantrymen are used as viewpoint characters, presumably so because they have such a high rate of mortality. The story is enjoyable, although some readers may object to the historically used terminology. I look forward to the next book in the series, Breakthrough. That will end the "Great War" series -- I'm trusting in the American-German alliance's favor.
Pick of the Week: David McCullough's 1776. As much as I liked Why Lincoln Matters, with me it's difficult to beat a good historical narrative.
Next week: I'll begin reading R.W. Southern's The Making of the Middle Ages and Turtledove's Breakthrough. I make no other guarantees -- while I will be doing research for my paper on the European Union (specifically, France's role in creating it), I doubt that I will read entire books on the subject like I did last semester for my papers on Jeanne d'Arc and the Luftwaffe.
All fought for independence then, each hero brave and bold…
'Twas then the noble Stars and Stripes
In triumph did appear,
And defended by brave patriots,
The Yankee volunteers.
Books in this Update:
- 1776, David McCullough
- The Jerk with the Cell Phone, Barbara Pachter and Susan Magee
- Why Lincoln Matters, Mario Cuomo
- The Great War: Walk in Hell, Harry Turtledove
This week's reading began with David McCullough's 1776. This book's cover art caught my eye as I strode through the library one evening, and I paused to examine it. A quick perusal betrayed that the book had a readable tone and seemed interesting enough, so I checked it out along with a few others. 1776 is a book dealing a critical year of the American Revolution. McCullough tells the story of this year using source materials from American soldiers, loyalist civilians, and British officers. It is a very readable book, in my opinion -- I was able to finish it during a weekend away from the university. The book is divided into three parts (much like Gaul): The Siege, Fateful Summer, and The Long Retreat. For those unfamiliar with the way the Revolutionary War proceeded, it was actually a rather bleak affair for those hoping for an American victory. Washington spends much of the early part of the war either in retreat from the British army in an effort to keep his army intact or dealing with the American bureaucracy. What I appreciate about this book is that it shows both Washington's failings and his triumphs. I recommend 1776 heartily.
My next read was a very light one -- The Jerk with the Cell Phone: A Guide for the Rest Of Us, by Barbara Pachter and Susan Magee. This, as you might imagine, is a short book that complains about cell-phone addicts and offers tips for how to deal with them. The book explains the various types of cell-phone jerks and then offers vary information. There's really not that much to the book, but it is enjoyable enough to read if you find people yelling in their phones during dinner to be a tad disruptive.
My next book was a bit more serious. Why Lincoln Matters explores Lincoln's heritage and attempts to make connections between Lincoln's policy decisions and the policy decisions of presidents that claim to follow in his footsteps. The book is by Mario Cuomo, and the name struck me as being familiar for some reason -- a good reason, it turns out. He was once the governor of New York. Cuomo examines Lincoln's record on war, liberty, civil rights, the role of government, religion, race, and more. He then compares these to other president's records -- F. Roosevelt and George W. Bush are the two names that are mentioned most, and Bush most of all. Lincoln is not without his flaws, and this is the reason I enjoyed the book so. People tend to deify the man. In all I found the book to be quite interesting, and I recommend you give it a go if you are at all interested in the politics of Abraham Lincoln.
My last read for this week was Harry Turtledove's The Great War: Walk in Hell. Walk in Hell is third in a series of alternative history books. In the first two, the Confederacy succeeded in seceding with the help of Great Britain and France. When the Confederacy attempted to expand, the United States objected and the two European powers again intervened. Having learned its lesson at the end of the first book --- get allies, plan for wars carefully -- the United States adopt Prussian-style militarism and overall readiness, creating a General Staff of its own. The General Staff represented the German military elite. Only 40 officers a year were invited to join its ranks, and those invited had to enroll in a "War Academy" where they were trained to think like strategists. In the second book, the United States and Germany are thrown into war when their mutual ally (Austria) declares war on Serbia for it not completing kowtowing to Austrian demands. The Great War begins essentially as it began in real life, but this time the United States declare (not declares; US government has evolved differently) war on the Confederacy and the Dominion of Canada. The south is also weakened by a socialist revolution (the socialists being the heavily-abused blacks). As mentioned prior, technology advances in almost the same way in Turtledove's books.
I am shamelessly rooting for the United States and Germany, having absolutely no love for the Confederacy. As such, I was pleased to read of the south's woes and the United States' progress against its southern foe. The story is told through the eyes of viewpoint characters, all fictional. The viewpoint characters are varied -- Canadian farmers, southern aristocrats, socialist revolutionaries, United States navy men, and so on. Very few infantrymen are used as viewpoint characters, presumably so because they have such a high rate of mortality. The story is enjoyable, although some readers may object to the historically used terminology. I look forward to the next book in the series, Breakthrough. That will end the "Great War" series -- I'm trusting in the American-German alliance's favor.
Pick of the Week: David McCullough's 1776. As much as I liked Why Lincoln Matters, with me it's difficult to beat a good historical narrative.
Next week: I'll begin reading R.W. Southern's The Making of the Middle Ages and Turtledove's Breakthrough. I make no other guarantees -- while I will be doing research for my paper on the European Union (specifically, France's role in creating it), I doubt that I will read entire books on the subject like I did last semester for my papers on Jeanne d'Arc and the Luftwaffe.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
This Week at the Library (28/2)
The History of the S.S. (G.S. Grabel)
Washington's Secret War (Thomas Fleming)
The Trial of Madame Caillaux (Edward Berenson)
Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. (Christopher Hitchens)
How Few Remain (Harry Turtledove)
Naturalist (E. O. Wilson)
The Great War: American Front (Harry Turtledove)
The first book I read this week I found purely by accident. During a blackout a week or so ago, I walked to the university library, hoping that they had power. They did have emergency lights, so I walked upstairs and began to roam the shelves. I found myself in German history, and picked up a book entitled The History of the S.S., by G.S. Graber. The book is short -- 212 pages -- but thoroughly enjoyable, given the subject matter. Graber explores the S.S. -- its creation, the men who ran it, and its demise. The S.S. constituted Hitler's real power base. The "Schutzstaffel" grew from a protection detail (protection from the S.A, or stormtroopers) to a major organization in Nazi Germany. They oversaw the Holocaust (Rudolf Höß, the commandant of Auschwitz, held a high rank in the S.S) and some of the fighting on the eastern front, through the Waffen S.S., or "armed SS".
While I knew a lot of the general information presented in this book (courtesy of my German history course and a historical interest in both World War 2 and Germany), I was still surprised by much of the information within. Graber offers miniature biographies of men like Hendrich Himmler to illustrate the disturbing fact that the S.S. were not madmen twisted by wretched childhood -- they were ordinarily people who managed to twist their own minds. Graber's book covers the SS from its inception to its dominance over all other Nazi organizations (I've read elsewhere that Himmler intended for the S.S to be a state within a state, with sovereignty in the east) to its demise. Graber also mentions the fascination many people in the United States have with the S.S. (and posits that "It may mean nothing, of course, but perhaps it helps to illustrate how a previous generation could have been entranced by the paraphernalia of the SS, its mystic signs, its banners, and ultimately its special mission." (Page 212.) Were I to write a paper on the S.S., I think that The History of the S.S. would serve well as a key source.
The next book I read, Washington's Secret War: The Hidden History of Valley Forge, is by Thomas Fleming. As I wrote this current paragraph on Presidents' Day, I turned on C-Span to find the author moderating a panel of historians as they discussed the relationship between General Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette. Timely! While I knew that Washington was not popular with some politicians (like John Adams), I was unaware of the extent of his unpopularity. In fact, it's rather hard for me to grasp, still. Washington is one of those figures of American history who is treated with veneration, so much so that he becomes a legendary figure, disassociated with the faults of real people. Robert E. Lee is treated the same way in the American south. The result of this (in Washington's case) is that it is hard to contemplate the fact that he had to put up with the same kind of politics that our current politicians have to deal with. This fact was demonstrated as I continued reading the book, and amused me for some reason. It was also encouraging in a strange way, I suppose. The political game, it seems, hasn't degenerated. The feud between Senators Clinton and Obama is tame, in fact, compared to the feud between Presidents Adams and Jefferson -- and petty defamations of character have apparently been a staple of American elections since there have been elections. Washington's Secret War was a thoroughly informative read.
The third book I read was The Trial of Madame Caillaux, by Edward Berenson. The title trial happened in France, in 1914. The wife of a French politician grows weary of a newspaperman's continual campaign against her husband and opts to shoot him. The murderer (Madame Caillaux) is put on trial for the murder, and thus the book begins. The book is divided into five chapters, each examining the role of a particular person in the trial and at the same time a part of French society that that person's case exemplifies. For instance, the chapter on Gaston Calmette (the unfortunate newspaperman) focuses on the role of the French press played in shaping popular opinion while looking into Calmette's motives for attacking Mr. Caillaux in the first place. In my opinion this was a splendid approach, and very well done. The book offered a look at life was like for Frenchmen in 1914, and I would recommend it heartily.
A few weeks ago I watched The Four Horsemen on Google Video, which is a conversation between the "Four Horsemen" of rational thought today (R. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, all of whom have written books on rationality v. religion recently). I thought it would be funny if I were to write a library post where I read a book from each of the "horsemen". I went to my university library's website and found books for three of them, the exception being Mr. Harris -- and that was no problem because I've already read both of his books. When I went to the library to fetch these tomes, my plans quickly changed. There is a reason I have never read one of Daniel Dennett's books, and that reason is that his books are intimidating. Perhaps one day if I find myself stranded on a desert isle I'll have the time it would take to read and comprehend one of his books, but not this week.
While looking for one of the Dennett books, though, I happened upon E.O. Wilson's Naturalist. E.O. Wilson is a name I know from one of my skeptic podcasts; Point of Inquiry, perhaps. After poking around in the book, I decided to give it a go. The library had one of Dr. Dawkins' books that I hadn't read, Climbing Mount Improbable. I have watched him give an excellent lecture on the same title, though, so I hoped I would have a head start on this book. As much as I like reading Dawkins, I don't have a head for biology and find it difficult to finish some of his works-- like The Selfish Gene, which I've tried twice with no success. Christopher Hitchens is considering one of the "Horsemen" because of his work God is Not Great: How Religion Ruins Everything, but he has written on other subjects. The book I chose to read by him -- and the first book I would read out of my "horsemen" selection -- was Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.
Hitchens' work focuses on President Jefferson's role in shaping American history, particularly his influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Louisiana Purchase. While the subject matter was generally interesting, Hitchens' tone is a bit stuffy. This is the first book I've read by him and I failed to read any reviews of the book before I read the book itself, so I don't know if this is a common aspect of Hitchens' work or if anyone else picked up it. My lack of historical enthusiasm for the Revolutionary War may also interfere with my enjoyment of the book -- but then, I did enjoy George Washington's Secret War. Read the book (if you are so inclined) and judge for yourself.
I then started on Naturalist but a friend of mine recommended I read Harry Turtledove's How Few Remain. Dr. Turtledove writes historical fiction -- alternative history, in fact. I have read a book by Turtledove before -- Guns of the South. In Guns of the South, Turtledove depicts the Confederacy winning the Civil War after they are assisting by time-traveling white supremacists who equip the rebels with AK-47s. In How Few Remain, he again proposes an alternate history where the Confederacy wins -- this time, by taking care of one of Lee's mistakes. Lee's orders for his 1862 invasion of Pennsylvania were intercepted by Federal troops, which allowed Gen. George McClellan to not lose the battle of Antietam. In How Few Remain, the intercepted orders are NOT intercepted, and Lee manages to deal the Army of the Potomac a fatal blow. England and France recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate nation, and the United States loses. This is a rather unfortunate turn of events for the slaves.
The above is actually the prelude to this book. The actual plot of this book concerns a second war between the states. The Confederacy, led by President James Longstreet, buys two of Mexico's northern provinces. The United States objects by declaring war, and that is what the book is about. This book is actually the prelude to a series of books that build off of the premises established. The viewpoint characters are historical figures -- Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and so on -- whose characters have been shaped by this interesting new history. Lincoln is not offed by a disgruntled ex-Confederate, and survives to become a Marxist, universally despised in the United States for losing the war and half the country. Teddy Roosevelt doesn't lead the Rough Riders up San Jan Hill -- he instead invades Canada. Despite my distaste for the idea of the Confederacy winning the Civil War, I enjoyed the book. It is as I said the prologue to Turtledove's alternative history series, and I've decided to read the series through.
After reading How Few Remained, I returned to my planned reading. Naturalist, by E.O. Wilson, is an autobiography of E. O. Wilson's life and career as a zoologist. I didn't realize that Dr. Wilson is from Alabama, but he grew up in the Mobile area during the depression. I haven't read any accounts of growing up in Alabama during that time, and so enjoyed that first part of the book the most. There are some parts of the book that weren't quite so interesting to a non-biologist like myself -- but in general it was an enjoyable read. Wilson is a good writer, and even when I wasn't sure what he was talking about I wanted to keep plowing through. Wilson has had a long and interesting life -- traveling the world over while doing his research and meeting people like James Watson.
Naturalist took me longer to read than it should have, because I was distracted by the next book in that alternate history series I began this week -- The Great War: American Front. The United States has managed to lose two separate wars against the Confederacy at this point, and has been abandoned by the two greatest powers of the world at that time -- Britain and France. One of How Few Remain's viewpoint characters was Alfred von Schlieffen, author of the German plan for fighting a two-front war. Turtledove is evidently a fan of Germany's General Staff (the elite core of officers that determined military policy in Germany until Hitler and his goons arrived), as he has von Schlieffen elaborate on how careful Germany is when planning for war -- as opposed to the United States' and Confederacy's prewar planning, which is negligible. The Great War: American Front picks up on a promise made by American (that is, northern) officers to go to Germany and learn their ways of conducting a war.
The book begins in 1914. The United States and Germany are bosom buddies, as the U.S. is a member of the Triple Alliance, along with Germany and Austria. The Confederacy is part of the British-French entente. Socialism is taking hold in the United States, and the two Americas despise one another. The Great War begins the same way in this book as it did in real life -- with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The United States and the Confederacy declare war on the other's alliance and thus begins the book. The viewpoint characters in this book are apparently going to be the staple core of characters used for the rest of the series, and they're all new. None of them are historical figures, not that I've seen anyway. There are historical figures in the books -- the U.S. President is Theodore Roosevelt, and the Confederate president is Woodrow Wilson -- but the story is never told from their point of view.
The evolution of warfare is the same in this version of the Great War as it is in real life -- US and German offensives lose steam and then settle into bloody trench warfare. Airplanes are used to gather intelligence, and then used as fighters -- which fits the pattern I've observed while studying the rise of air forces in various countries during the Great War. While the book (and the entire series, I think) is dominated by warfare, both books have been about more than war. They've been about how these societies develop, their economies, how their very cultures are fashioned by the differing chain of events. While I do have a number of quibbles, overall the series has been enjoyable and I find the connections he makes to be generally plausible. I am not convinced that Britain and France would have sided with the Confederacy in the first place, though.
That concludes this week's reading.
Pick of the Week: The History of the S.S. was extremely well-written and quite informative.
Next week, I will finish R. Dawkin's Climbing Mount. Improbable, and will continue my reading of the Turtledove series. I think my next history paper will be about France's role in forging the European Union, so I might read something along those lines.
Washington's Secret War (Thomas Fleming)
The Trial of Madame Caillaux (Edward Berenson)
Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. (Christopher Hitchens)
How Few Remain (Harry Turtledove)
Naturalist (E. O. Wilson)
The Great War: American Front (Harry Turtledove)
The first book I read this week I found purely by accident. During a blackout a week or so ago, I walked to the university library, hoping that they had power. They did have emergency lights, so I walked upstairs and began to roam the shelves. I found myself in German history, and picked up a book entitled The History of the S.S., by G.S. Graber. The book is short -- 212 pages -- but thoroughly enjoyable, given the subject matter. Graber explores the S.S. -- its creation, the men who ran it, and its demise. The S.S. constituted Hitler's real power base. The "Schutzstaffel" grew from a protection detail (protection from the S.A, or stormtroopers) to a major organization in Nazi Germany. They oversaw the Holocaust (Rudolf Höß, the commandant of Auschwitz, held a high rank in the S.S) and some of the fighting on the eastern front, through the Waffen S.S., or "armed SS".
While I knew a lot of the general information presented in this book (courtesy of my German history course and a historical interest in both World War 2 and Germany), I was still surprised by much of the information within. Graber offers miniature biographies of men like Hendrich Himmler to illustrate the disturbing fact that the S.S. were not madmen twisted by wretched childhood -- they were ordinarily people who managed to twist their own minds. Graber's book covers the SS from its inception to its dominance over all other Nazi organizations (I've read elsewhere that Himmler intended for the S.S to be a state within a state, with sovereignty in the east) to its demise. Graber also mentions the fascination many people in the United States have with the S.S. (and posits that "It may mean nothing, of course, but perhaps it helps to illustrate how a previous generation could have been entranced by the paraphernalia of the SS, its mystic signs, its banners, and ultimately its special mission." (Page 212.) Were I to write a paper on the S.S., I think that The History of the S.S. would serve well as a key source.
The next book I read, Washington's Secret War: The Hidden History of Valley Forge, is by Thomas Fleming. As I wrote this current paragraph on Presidents' Day, I turned on C-Span to find the author moderating a panel of historians as they discussed the relationship between General Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette. Timely! While I knew that Washington was not popular with some politicians (like John Adams), I was unaware of the extent of his unpopularity. In fact, it's rather hard for me to grasp, still. Washington is one of those figures of American history who is treated with veneration, so much so that he becomes a legendary figure, disassociated with the faults of real people. Robert E. Lee is treated the same way in the American south. The result of this (in Washington's case) is that it is hard to contemplate the fact that he had to put up with the same kind of politics that our current politicians have to deal with. This fact was demonstrated as I continued reading the book, and amused me for some reason. It was also encouraging in a strange way, I suppose. The political game, it seems, hasn't degenerated. The feud between Senators Clinton and Obama is tame, in fact, compared to the feud between Presidents Adams and Jefferson -- and petty defamations of character have apparently been a staple of American elections since there have been elections. Washington's Secret War was a thoroughly informative read.
The third book I read was The Trial of Madame Caillaux, by Edward Berenson. The title trial happened in France, in 1914. The wife of a French politician grows weary of a newspaperman's continual campaign against her husband and opts to shoot him. The murderer (Madame Caillaux) is put on trial for the murder, and thus the book begins. The book is divided into five chapters, each examining the role of a particular person in the trial and at the same time a part of French society that that person's case exemplifies. For instance, the chapter on Gaston Calmette (the unfortunate newspaperman) focuses on the role of the French press played in shaping popular opinion while looking into Calmette's motives for attacking Mr. Caillaux in the first place. In my opinion this was a splendid approach, and very well done. The book offered a look at life was like for Frenchmen in 1914, and I would recommend it heartily.
A few weeks ago I watched The Four Horsemen on Google Video, which is a conversation between the "Four Horsemen" of rational thought today (R. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, all of whom have written books on rationality v. religion recently). I thought it would be funny if I were to write a library post where I read a book from each of the "horsemen". I went to my university library's website and found books for three of them, the exception being Mr. Harris -- and that was no problem because I've already read both of his books. When I went to the library to fetch these tomes, my plans quickly changed. There is a reason I have never read one of Daniel Dennett's books, and that reason is that his books are intimidating. Perhaps one day if I find myself stranded on a desert isle I'll have the time it would take to read and comprehend one of his books, but not this week.
While looking for one of the Dennett books, though, I happened upon E.O. Wilson's Naturalist. E.O. Wilson is a name I know from one of my skeptic podcasts; Point of Inquiry, perhaps. After poking around in the book, I decided to give it a go. The library had one of Dr. Dawkins' books that I hadn't read, Climbing Mount Improbable. I have watched him give an excellent lecture on the same title, though, so I hoped I would have a head start on this book. As much as I like reading Dawkins, I don't have a head for biology and find it difficult to finish some of his works-- like The Selfish Gene, which I've tried twice with no success. Christopher Hitchens is considering one of the "Horsemen" because of his work God is Not Great: How Religion Ruins Everything, but he has written on other subjects. The book I chose to read by him -- and the first book I would read out of my "horsemen" selection -- was Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.
Hitchens' work focuses on President Jefferson's role in shaping American history, particularly his influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Louisiana Purchase. While the subject matter was generally interesting, Hitchens' tone is a bit stuffy. This is the first book I've read by him and I failed to read any reviews of the book before I read the book itself, so I don't know if this is a common aspect of Hitchens' work or if anyone else picked up it. My lack of historical enthusiasm for the Revolutionary War may also interfere with my enjoyment of the book -- but then, I did enjoy George Washington's Secret War. Read the book (if you are so inclined) and judge for yourself.
I then started on Naturalist but a friend of mine recommended I read Harry Turtledove's How Few Remain. Dr. Turtledove writes historical fiction -- alternative history, in fact. I have read a book by Turtledove before -- Guns of the South. In Guns of the South, Turtledove depicts the Confederacy winning the Civil War after they are assisting by time-traveling white supremacists who equip the rebels with AK-47s. In How Few Remain, he again proposes an alternate history where the Confederacy wins -- this time, by taking care of one of Lee's mistakes. Lee's orders for his 1862 invasion of Pennsylvania were intercepted by Federal troops, which allowed Gen. George McClellan to not lose the battle of Antietam. In How Few Remain, the intercepted orders are NOT intercepted, and Lee manages to deal the Army of the Potomac a fatal blow. England and France recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate nation, and the United States loses. This is a rather unfortunate turn of events for the slaves.
The above is actually the prelude to this book. The actual plot of this book concerns a second war between the states. The Confederacy, led by President James Longstreet, buys two of Mexico's northern provinces. The United States objects by declaring war, and that is what the book is about. This book is actually the prelude to a series of books that build off of the premises established. The viewpoint characters are historical figures -- Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and so on -- whose characters have been shaped by this interesting new history. Lincoln is not offed by a disgruntled ex-Confederate, and survives to become a Marxist, universally despised in the United States for losing the war and half the country. Teddy Roosevelt doesn't lead the Rough Riders up San Jan Hill -- he instead invades Canada. Despite my distaste for the idea of the Confederacy winning the Civil War, I enjoyed the book. It is as I said the prologue to Turtledove's alternative history series, and I've decided to read the series through.
After reading How Few Remained, I returned to my planned reading. Naturalist, by E.O. Wilson, is an autobiography of E. O. Wilson's life and career as a zoologist. I didn't realize that Dr. Wilson is from Alabama, but he grew up in the Mobile area during the depression. I haven't read any accounts of growing up in Alabama during that time, and so enjoyed that first part of the book the most. There are some parts of the book that weren't quite so interesting to a non-biologist like myself -- but in general it was an enjoyable read. Wilson is a good writer, and even when I wasn't sure what he was talking about I wanted to keep plowing through. Wilson has had a long and interesting life -- traveling the world over while doing his research and meeting people like James Watson.
Naturalist took me longer to read than it should have, because I was distracted by the next book in that alternate history series I began this week -- The Great War: American Front. The United States has managed to lose two separate wars against the Confederacy at this point, and has been abandoned by the two greatest powers of the world at that time -- Britain and France. One of How Few Remain's viewpoint characters was Alfred von Schlieffen, author of the German plan for fighting a two-front war. Turtledove is evidently a fan of Germany's General Staff (the elite core of officers that determined military policy in Germany until Hitler and his goons arrived), as he has von Schlieffen elaborate on how careful Germany is when planning for war -- as opposed to the United States' and Confederacy's prewar planning, which is negligible. The Great War: American Front picks up on a promise made by American (that is, northern) officers to go to Germany and learn their ways of conducting a war.
The book begins in 1914. The United States and Germany are bosom buddies, as the U.S. is a member of the Triple Alliance, along with Germany and Austria. The Confederacy is part of the British-French entente. Socialism is taking hold in the United States, and the two Americas despise one another. The Great War begins the same way in this book as it did in real life -- with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The United States and the Confederacy declare war on the other's alliance and thus begins the book. The viewpoint characters in this book are apparently going to be the staple core of characters used for the rest of the series, and they're all new. None of them are historical figures, not that I've seen anyway. There are historical figures in the books -- the U.S. President is Theodore Roosevelt, and the Confederate president is Woodrow Wilson -- but the story is never told from their point of view.
The evolution of warfare is the same in this version of the Great War as it is in real life -- US and German offensives lose steam and then settle into bloody trench warfare. Airplanes are used to gather intelligence, and then used as fighters -- which fits the pattern I've observed while studying the rise of air forces in various countries during the Great War. While the book (and the entire series, I think) is dominated by warfare, both books have been about more than war. They've been about how these societies develop, their economies, how their very cultures are fashioned by the differing chain of events. While I do have a number of quibbles, overall the series has been enjoyable and I find the connections he makes to be generally plausible. I am not convinced that Britain and France would have sided with the Confederacy in the first place, though.
That concludes this week's reading.
Pick of the Week: The History of the S.S. was extremely well-written and quite informative.
Next week, I will finish R. Dawkin's Climbing Mount. Improbable, and will continue my reading of the Turtledove series. I think my next history paper will be about France's role in forging the European Union, so I might read something along those lines.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
The Best of 2007:
While I do enjoy writing about the books I read (writing in general, really) and sharing my thoughts, the primary purpose I have for this blog is to keep track of my own reading. It occurred to me today that perhaps I should look at some of the books I’ve read this year; as I plan on maintaining this for myself for years to come, I can make it an annual tradition. This first year is a bit off, of course, and will be incomplete since I only started this series on my MySpace back in May. I have read my past entries and compiled a list of my favorite books from the year 2007. These are not the only books I enjoyed this year, of course, but they are the ones that stick out.
May:
The Know-It-All: Author A.J. Jacobs chronicles his attempt to read the entire Encylopaedia Britannica. The book is packed full of interesting trivia and humor. Jacob tries out for Who Wants to be a Millionaire and speaks with Alex Trebek.
June:
Universe on a T-Shirt: Dan Falk talks about science as a way of understanding the world around us, and tries to tie the history of science together and point out that all throughout civilized history, we have attempted to find the ultimate truth of why the universe is the way it is -- and why it even “is” to begin with. He does this by providing a history of science, tying together various disciplines like biology, cosmology, and physics.
July:
Before the Dawn: This is an anthropological work by Nicholas Wade that focuses on humanity as we began populating the globe and began transitioning from hunter-gatherers into settled creatures. I commented at the time that it reminded me of Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.
Phantoms in the Brain: This book by V.S. Ramachandran covers neurological abnormalities, like phantom limbs. While I had long since forgotten what I learned in psychology or anatomy classes, I understood the book and thought it was one of the most interesting things I had ever read.
The Stand: Given my distaste for supernaturalism, I do not make a habit of reading horror books. This book was highly recommended and I was in the mood for a end-of-the-world scenario, so I checked it out. The book is about a super virus that decimates western civilization (and through military officials, the Soviet Union and China). While I did enjoy much of the book, I wasn’t a fan of the religious overtones. Quite enjoyable overall, though.
August:
Theories for Everything: Theories is an overview and history science. I was quite taken by this book, and it is one book I want to have in my personal library. The book has several authors, each experts in their respective fields. All of them were able to convey the details of their disciplines in a manner easily understandable by someone with an average understanding of science like myself.
A Man Without a Country: Kurt Vonnegut’s final work expresses his thoughts on a number of subjects, and his humanistic idealism shines through in many the essays, particularly in the latter half of the book. I share some of my favorite quotations from it here.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone: I gave in to the numerous friends who were badgering me to at least give the first book a chance and read the book. As it turns out, I really rather loved the book. In this book, Rowling introduces her world of wizardry and witchcraft and begins weaving the story that she will finish years later (or in my case, a month later) with The Deathly Hallows.
The Rising Tide: Jeff Shaara’s latest book is the first in a planned three-book trilogy on the European war. Shaara attempts to write the story of the second world war through the eyes of the men who fought in it, borrowing his father’s style that worked so well and achieved such acclaim in The Killer Angels. I enjoyed this book as I have others written by the Shaaras, although since he uses near-contemporary characters like Roosevelt and Hitler I felt it necessary to use fictional portrayals of those characters (like Roosevelt’s portrayal in Pearl Harbor) when picturing the book’s scenes in my head.
September:
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Second in Rowling’s Harry Potter series, this book introduces plot elements that will be revealed in The Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. The plot of this particular book, though, dealt with a monster in the bowels of Hogwarts School preying on the students. Harry, of course, triumphs.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban : Third in the series, and one of my two favorites in the series, Azkaban sees Harry learning more about his parents and introduces several main characters.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is sixth in the Harry Potter series, and the second of my two favorite books. Half-Blood Prince is in many ways a direct prolouge to The Deathly Hallows. Harry and Professor Dumbledore begin to attack Lord Voldemort by seeking out and destroying Horcruxes that contain bits and pieces of his soul.
Pale Blue Dot: I need only to reveal the author of this book (Carl Sagan) to indicate that I very much enjoyed this book. I enjoy pretty much anything by Carl Sagan. I daresay I would be enthralled by his doodles. Sagan writes about humanity’s future role in regards to space. The introduction to this book has been set to video, and remains my favorite YouTube video.
October:
The Darwin Awards: Darwin Awards are awarded to humans who remove themselves from the gene pool (before reproducing) in particularly stupid ways, thus improving the gene pool by removing genes prone to excessive stupidity. (I think family life and environment contributes more to stupidity than genes, but ignorant parents often breed ignorant children so I suppose it’ll work.)
November:
Great Tales from English History, parts one and two: both books are a collection of short chapters. Each chapter deals with a particular tale that deals with medieval English history -- the influence of Joan of Arc, for instance, or the story of Queen Boudicca. I enjoyed both books very much and look forward to the day that they are added to my personal library.
The Hundred Years War: I checked this book because I was then in the process of writing a paper on Jeanne d’Arc. Desmond Seward’s book is an excellent review of the Hundred Years’ War, and helped me understand the background of Jeanne’s story. I found out in the course of writing my paper, though, that she is really overrated. England lost the hundred years’ war when they lost their alliance with Burgundy. Unfortunately for my paper, I figured this out too late to do a revision. I managed to get an A, but I could’ve done much better.
December:
The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operation Air War: This was my main source when writing my second term paper on the Luftwaffe. The book is well-written, and the author seems to have researched the topic for a number of years before writing the book. The book cleared up misconceptions I had. I enjoyed it quite well.
Meditations: Written by Marcus Aurelius, these musings reveal the mind of Emperor Aurelius. He was a tremendous Stoic and I found his thoughts to be personally inspiring.
That concludes my favorite books from the period of May to December ‘07.
Nonfiction to Fiction Ratio: 13:6. The bulk of my favorite fiction reading consisted of Harry Potter books, though.
May:
The Know-It-All: Author A.J. Jacobs chronicles his attempt to read the entire Encylopaedia Britannica. The book is packed full of interesting trivia and humor. Jacob tries out for Who Wants to be a Millionaire and speaks with Alex Trebek.
June:
Universe on a T-Shirt: Dan Falk talks about science as a way of understanding the world around us, and tries to tie the history of science together and point out that all throughout civilized history, we have attempted to find the ultimate truth of why the universe is the way it is -- and why it even “is” to begin with. He does this by providing a history of science, tying together various disciplines like biology, cosmology, and physics.
July:
Before the Dawn: This is an anthropological work by Nicholas Wade that focuses on humanity as we began populating the globe and began transitioning from hunter-gatherers into settled creatures. I commented at the time that it reminded me of Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.
Phantoms in the Brain: This book by V.S. Ramachandran covers neurological abnormalities, like phantom limbs. While I had long since forgotten what I learned in psychology or anatomy classes, I understood the book and thought it was one of the most interesting things I had ever read.
The Stand: Given my distaste for supernaturalism, I do not make a habit of reading horror books. This book was highly recommended and I was in the mood for a end-of-the-world scenario, so I checked it out. The book is about a super virus that decimates western civilization (and through military officials, the Soviet Union and China). While I did enjoy much of the book, I wasn’t a fan of the religious overtones. Quite enjoyable overall, though.
August:
Theories for Everything: Theories is an overview and history science. I was quite taken by this book, and it is one book I want to have in my personal library. The book has several authors, each experts in their respective fields. All of them were able to convey the details of their disciplines in a manner easily understandable by someone with an average understanding of science like myself.
A Man Without a Country: Kurt Vonnegut’s final work expresses his thoughts on a number of subjects, and his humanistic idealism shines through in many the essays, particularly in the latter half of the book. I share some of my favorite quotations from it here.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone: I gave in to the numerous friends who were badgering me to at least give the first book a chance and read the book. As it turns out, I really rather loved the book. In this book, Rowling introduces her world of wizardry and witchcraft and begins weaving the story that she will finish years later (or in my case, a month later) with The Deathly Hallows.
The Rising Tide: Jeff Shaara’s latest book is the first in a planned three-book trilogy on the European war. Shaara attempts to write the story of the second world war through the eyes of the men who fought in it, borrowing his father’s style that worked so well and achieved such acclaim in The Killer Angels. I enjoyed this book as I have others written by the Shaaras, although since he uses near-contemporary characters like Roosevelt and Hitler I felt it necessary to use fictional portrayals of those characters (like Roosevelt’s portrayal in Pearl Harbor) when picturing the book’s scenes in my head.
September:
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Second in Rowling’s Harry Potter series, this book introduces plot elements that will be revealed in The Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. The plot of this particular book, though, dealt with a monster in the bowels of Hogwarts School preying on the students. Harry, of course, triumphs.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban : Third in the series, and one of my two favorites in the series, Azkaban sees Harry learning more about his parents and introduces several main characters.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is sixth in the Harry Potter series, and the second of my two favorite books. Half-Blood Prince is in many ways a direct prolouge to The Deathly Hallows. Harry and Professor Dumbledore begin to attack Lord Voldemort by seeking out and destroying Horcruxes that contain bits and pieces of his soul.
Pale Blue Dot: I need only to reveal the author of this book (Carl Sagan) to indicate that I very much enjoyed this book. I enjoy pretty much anything by Carl Sagan. I daresay I would be enthralled by his doodles. Sagan writes about humanity’s future role in regards to space. The introduction to this book has been set to video, and remains my favorite YouTube video.
October:
The Darwin Awards: Darwin Awards are awarded to humans who remove themselves from the gene pool (before reproducing) in particularly stupid ways, thus improving the gene pool by removing genes prone to excessive stupidity. (I think family life and environment contributes more to stupidity than genes, but ignorant parents often breed ignorant children so I suppose it’ll work.)
November:
Great Tales from English History, parts one and two: both books are a collection of short chapters. Each chapter deals with a particular tale that deals with medieval English history -- the influence of Joan of Arc, for instance, or the story of Queen Boudicca. I enjoyed both books very much and look forward to the day that they are added to my personal library.
The Hundred Years War: I checked this book because I was then in the process of writing a paper on Jeanne d’Arc. Desmond Seward’s book is an excellent review of the Hundred Years’ War, and helped me understand the background of Jeanne’s story. I found out in the course of writing my paper, though, that she is really overrated. England lost the hundred years’ war when they lost their alliance with Burgundy. Unfortunately for my paper, I figured this out too late to do a revision. I managed to get an A, but I could’ve done much better.
December:
The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operation Air War: This was my main source when writing my second term paper on the Luftwaffe. The book is well-written, and the author seems to have researched the topic for a number of years before writing the book. The book cleared up misconceptions I had. I enjoyed it quite well.
Meditations: Written by Marcus Aurelius, these musings reveal the mind of Emperor Aurelius. He was a tremendous Stoic and I found his thoughts to be personally inspiring.
That concludes my favorite books from the period of May to December ‘07.
Nonfiction to Fiction Ratio: 13:6. The bulk of my favorite fiction reading consisted of Harry Potter books, though.
This Week (Month?) at the Library
It's been well over a month since I last sat down to write about the books I'm reading, for whatever reasons. I have gone through a few books in that time, although not as many as I would've liked or as many as I would have ordinarily expected. While on Christmas break, I checked out a variety of books on Rome, Greece, France, and Germany. I would only end up reading one of those, being distracted by the holidays and a Civilization 3 game.
The book I did read was Greece and Rome: Builders of Our World by Paul Lachlan MacKendrick. The book itself was a beautiful thing, a sight to behold. The copy I had was a hardcover, dark green. A silk ribbon was sewn into the book's binder as a bookmark. The pages themselves were amply decorated, with pictures often serving as the background of the page. The book is a collection of essays dealing with Rome and Greece, as you might have already reduced from the book. The most memorable essay saw the author retracing Odysseus' footsteps (or…oar-beats?) , using etymology and geography to sort out what Homer's colorful descriptions were actually about. Heretofore I had dismissed the vast majority of those tales as simple myth, but the author made some plausible connections to reality, even finding a way of giving the Cyclopes some shadow of truth -- figuring out what the Cyclopes might be an exaggeration of. It's been a month and a half since I read the book, though, so I can't remember anything specific. The book itself was put out by the National Geographic Society, which would explain how impressively it was done.
The second book I read was France 1814 -1919: The Rise of a Liberal-Democratic Society. I checked this book out to help me prepare for my French History class, but was unable to understand it at first until the semester began and terms like "Ultras" were actually explained. In this case, the class helped me understand the book; quite the reverse of what I had intended! Persons less distracted than myself (once the holidays were over, I actually made good progress in reading this one) and interested in French history should find this book quite interesting. I wish I could elaborate more.
While my reading tends to be dominated by nonfiction, I did happen to read a work of fiction -- The Confessions of Max Tivoli, by Andrew Sean Greer. I found this book through "Unshelved", a comic strip set in a library. The strip is a daily strip, but every Sunday the strip is used for "The Unshelved Book Club" -- where essentially they recommend a book. Here's the "Book Club" strip for The Confessions of Max Tivoli.
http://www.unshelved.com/archive.aspx?strip=20071125
That essentially explains the gist of the book. As you can see from the characters' clothing in that advertisement, the book isn't set in the present day. Max is born in 1871 and lives through the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco as well as both world wars. The book is principally about Max's lifelong love for Alice, and his difficultly in living with his strange condition. The premise of the book is very interesting, and the book itself is in my opinion beautifully written. My only problem with this book was that it was rather tragic. It's definitely one of the most interesting books I've ever read, though, so I'd recommend it. I returned the book yesterday without writing down some of the more beautiful bits of prose, but I did write down the following two weeks ago when it snowed here in Alabama -- and appropriately enough, I read about a freak snowfall in San Francisco.
"The day that Father disappeared, long ago in San Francisco, I awoke from my unmade bed to find another, formed in snow outside my window. Like a health-crazed mother who feeds you on a steady diet of grains and crackers but one morning produces a sugared white cake just because she's missed it for too long, the world had happily shrugged off all expectations and given me a snowy day. I had read about it, and heard my father's recollections of the castles and dragons carved from the banks of creamy Danish snow, how he and the other boys would slide on wooden boards all the way to Prussia, but I was not prepared for the real thing. I thought it would be like a toy left in the yard; I was not prepared for snow to erase the world completely and leave a crisp, blank page. I stared out at the mansions that were not there, the horses, the surreys, the work-bound men I was so used to seeing. There was no sky; there was no city. I gasped as we always do at the unnatural. [...] They say the most that fell that day was a foot of snow in Golden Gate. About three inches fell in the city itself. I have since learned in my travels, especially during a hip-high whopper in Colorado, that this is nothing; this is a mere extravagance of frost. But for us it was thick and bright as luck. " - Andrew Sean Greer, The Confessions of Max Tivoli
The last book I read was Sinister Touches: The Secret War Against Hitler by Robert Goldston. The book focuses on American and British intelligence operations against the Axis powers -- from attempts to steal Enigma (the Nazi military coding machine) to sabotage of infrastructure. I checked this book out in high school but never read it, so when I spotted this last week in the local library, I knew I had to check it out. It was most enjoyable.
Pick of the Week: The Confessions of Max Tivoli. Tragic, but beautifully written.
I'm currently reading two books. The first is Washington's Secret War by Thomas Fleming, a book focusing on George Washington's attempts to defend against attacks on his character and competence from Congress and some French allies. The second is a book about the formation of the SS in Nazi Germany, although I can't remember the title offhand and can't seem to find it in the University library's system, even though that's where I found itT
The book I did read was Greece and Rome: Builders of Our World by Paul Lachlan MacKendrick. The book itself was a beautiful thing, a sight to behold. The copy I had was a hardcover, dark green. A silk ribbon was sewn into the book's binder as a bookmark. The pages themselves were amply decorated, with pictures often serving as the background of the page. The book is a collection of essays dealing with Rome and Greece, as you might have already reduced from the book. The most memorable essay saw the author retracing Odysseus' footsteps (or…oar-beats?) , using etymology and geography to sort out what Homer's colorful descriptions were actually about. Heretofore I had dismissed the vast majority of those tales as simple myth, but the author made some plausible connections to reality, even finding a way of giving the Cyclopes some shadow of truth -- figuring out what the Cyclopes might be an exaggeration of. It's been a month and a half since I read the book, though, so I can't remember anything specific. The book itself was put out by the National Geographic Society, which would explain how impressively it was done.
The second book I read was France 1814 -1919: The Rise of a Liberal-Democratic Society. I checked this book out to help me prepare for my French History class, but was unable to understand it at first until the semester began and terms like "Ultras" were actually explained. In this case, the class helped me understand the book; quite the reverse of what I had intended! Persons less distracted than myself (once the holidays were over, I actually made good progress in reading this one) and interested in French history should find this book quite interesting. I wish I could elaborate more.
While my reading tends to be dominated by nonfiction, I did happen to read a work of fiction -- The Confessions of Max Tivoli, by Andrew Sean Greer. I found this book through "Unshelved", a comic strip set in a library. The strip is a daily strip, but every Sunday the strip is used for "The Unshelved Book Club" -- where essentially they recommend a book. Here's the "Book Club" strip for The Confessions of Max Tivoli.
http://www.unshelved.com/archive.aspx?strip=20071125
That essentially explains the gist of the book. As you can see from the characters' clothing in that advertisement, the book isn't set in the present day. Max is born in 1871 and lives through the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco as well as both world wars. The book is principally about Max's lifelong love for Alice, and his difficultly in living with his strange condition. The premise of the book is very interesting, and the book itself is in my opinion beautifully written. My only problem with this book was that it was rather tragic. It's definitely one of the most interesting books I've ever read, though, so I'd recommend it. I returned the book yesterday without writing down some of the more beautiful bits of prose, but I did write down the following two weeks ago when it snowed here in Alabama -- and appropriately enough, I read about a freak snowfall in San Francisco.
"The day that Father disappeared, long ago in San Francisco, I awoke from my unmade bed to find another, formed in snow outside my window. Like a health-crazed mother who feeds you on a steady diet of grains and crackers but one morning produces a sugared white cake just because she's missed it for too long, the world had happily shrugged off all expectations and given me a snowy day. I had read about it, and heard my father's recollections of the castles and dragons carved from the banks of creamy Danish snow, how he and the other boys would slide on wooden boards all the way to Prussia, but I was not prepared for the real thing. I thought it would be like a toy left in the yard; I was not prepared for snow to erase the world completely and leave a crisp, blank page. I stared out at the mansions that were not there, the horses, the surreys, the work-bound men I was so used to seeing. There was no sky; there was no city. I gasped as we always do at the unnatural. [...] They say the most that fell that day was a foot of snow in Golden Gate. About three inches fell in the city itself. I have since learned in my travels, especially during a hip-high whopper in Colorado, that this is nothing; this is a mere extravagance of frost. But for us it was thick and bright as luck. " - Andrew Sean Greer, The Confessions of Max Tivoli
The last book I read was Sinister Touches: The Secret War Against Hitler by Robert Goldston. The book focuses on American and British intelligence operations against the Axis powers -- from attempts to steal Enigma (the Nazi military coding machine) to sabotage of infrastructure. I checked this book out in high school but never read it, so when I spotted this last week in the local library, I knew I had to check it out. It was most enjoyable.
Pick of the Week: The Confessions of Max Tivoli. Tragic, but beautifully written.
I'm currently reading two books. The first is Washington's Secret War by Thomas Fleming, a book focusing on George Washington's attempts to defend against attacks on his character and competence from Congress and some French allies. The second is a book about the formation of the SS in Nazi Germany, although I can't remember the title offhand and can't seem to find it in the University library's system, even though that's where I found itT
Thursday, December 13, 2007
This Week at the Library (13/12)
Current Music: "Downtown Train", Rod Stewart
The past few weeks have been spent working on my term paper for German History class: my goal was to show how the German air force in the first world war shaped the role of the Luftwaffe. I was apparently successful in the attempt, as my paper received an A. I had been reading materials for this paper off and on throughout the course of the term, having decided at the beginning of it to cover a topic I with which I was already intimate. Aviation has always been a peculiar interest of mine. I have practically memorized Albert Marrin's The Airman's War, and that is the book that formed most of my knowledge about aerial power in the Second World War.
The first book I read in regard to this subject was The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operational Air War, written by James S. Corum. Corum follows aviation in Germany from the early 1900s until 1940, focusing on the years between 1918 and 1939. Corum's book was more or less my main source. Corum attempts to deal with some misconceptions about German aerial power -- for instance, the idea that the Luftwaffe was developed solely as a tactical force to be used against enemy soldiers and tanks, and not as a strategic air force that would target enemy cities. The book is quite interesting, and for once that isn't guaranteed: I didn't choose my term paper research books because I knew they would interest me, I chose them because I needed the facts they contained.
Another book I read was David Irving's The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe. My professor actually laughed when he saw the book: as it turns out, Irving is or was a Holocaust-denier. Reading a history book by a Holocaust-denier is like reading a science book by a Young-Earth Creationist. When I found out the author's integrity had been compromised, I attempted to look for sources to verify that this particular book was worth reading. I found no such sources, but I ended up using the book for a few trifling facts about Erhard Milch, who played a role in the administration of the Luftwaffe. Irving's tone is pretty readable. Despite the book's title, it isn't actually about the Luftwaffe. It's about Milch, so it wasn't very usable.
Another key source for me was The Influence of Air Power Upon History, written by Walter Boyne. The Influence of Air Power is a history of military aviation, and I used this primarily for context. Whatever Dr. Corum's complaints are with the book, it's pretty readable. I didn't read the portions that Dr. Corum took issue with, but this wasn't because of his opinion -- I just didn't need to read the whole book to get what I needed. I did read substantial portions of it, just not the entire thing.
After I finished my term paper, you would think that I was sick to death of reading about Germany. Well, think again. I think that my historical main interest is (finally) shifting. See, in ninth grade I was obsessed with the first world war. In tenth grade, I was obsessed with the second world war. In eleventh and twelfth grades, my obsession was the Civil War. From 2004 on until today, my interest has been 1930s America: this began with the Mafia and then broadened to the 1930s. Now I believe that my interest is shifting to Germany. This isn't a new development: this interest has been slowly developing ever since my history professor at WCCS lectured on Bismarck. I then bought a book on German history and was even more interested. That let to me taking this class. I don't know what it is about Germany that interests me so, though. The past couple of years have seen a growing interest in French and German history, so it's not just Germany. My history professor recommend a movie called Downfall about the last days of the Third Reich. The clips I saw on YouTube look fantastic, although I fail to see how Hitler is seen as "sympathetic". In the movie he seems like a screaming lunatic. I guess it's the ex-Pentecostal in me, but I don't respond well to screamers. One of the "related" videos on the side was the "Hitler Rap", which I found hilarious.
The past few weeks have been spent working on my term paper for German History class: my goal was to show how the German air force in the first world war shaped the role of the Luftwaffe. I was apparently successful in the attempt, as my paper received an A. I had been reading materials for this paper off and on throughout the course of the term, having decided at the beginning of it to cover a topic I with which I was already intimate. Aviation has always been a peculiar interest of mine. I have practically memorized Albert Marrin's The Airman's War, and that is the book that formed most of my knowledge about aerial power in the Second World War.
The first book I read in regard to this subject was The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operational Air War, written by James S. Corum. Corum follows aviation in Germany from the early 1900s until 1940, focusing on the years between 1918 and 1939. Corum's book was more or less my main source. Corum attempts to deal with some misconceptions about German aerial power -- for instance, the idea that the Luftwaffe was developed solely as a tactical force to be used against enemy soldiers and tanks, and not as a strategic air force that would target enemy cities. The book is quite interesting, and for once that isn't guaranteed: I didn't choose my term paper research books because I knew they would interest me, I chose them because I needed the facts they contained.
Another book I read was David Irving's The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe. My professor actually laughed when he saw the book: as it turns out, Irving is or was a Holocaust-denier. Reading a history book by a Holocaust-denier is like reading a science book by a Young-Earth Creationist. When I found out the author's integrity had been compromised, I attempted to look for sources to verify that this particular book was worth reading. I found no such sources, but I ended up using the book for a few trifling facts about Erhard Milch, who played a role in the administration of the Luftwaffe. Irving's tone is pretty readable. Despite the book's title, it isn't actually about the Luftwaffe. It's about Milch, so it wasn't very usable.
Another key source for me was The Influence of Air Power Upon History, written by Walter Boyne. The Influence of Air Power is a history of military aviation, and I used this primarily for context. Whatever Dr. Corum's complaints are with the book, it's pretty readable. I didn't read the portions that Dr. Corum took issue with, but this wasn't because of his opinion -- I just didn't need to read the whole book to get what I needed. I did read substantial portions of it, just not the entire thing.
After I finished my term paper, you would think that I was sick to death of reading about Germany. Well, think again. I think that my historical main interest is (finally) shifting. See, in ninth grade I was obsessed with the first world war. In tenth grade, I was obsessed with the second world war. In eleventh and twelfth grades, my obsession was the Civil War. From 2004 on until today, my interest has been 1930s America: this began with the Mafia and then broadened to the 1930s. Now I believe that my interest is shifting to Germany. This isn't a new development: this interest has been slowly developing ever since my history professor at WCCS lectured on Bismarck. I then bought a book on German history and was even more interested. That let to me taking this class. I don't know what it is about Germany that interests me so, though. The past couple of years have seen a growing interest in French and German history, so it's not just Germany. My history professor recommend a movie called Downfall about the last days of the Third Reich. The clips I saw on YouTube look fantastic, although I fail to see how Hitler is seen as "sympathetic". In the movie he seems like a screaming lunatic. I guess it's the ex-Pentecostal in me, but I don't respond well to screamers. One of the "related" videos on the side was the "Hitler Rap", which I found hilarious.
Well, hi there peoples!
You know me!
I used to run a little joint called "Germany".
I was number one! The people's choice.
And everybody listened to my mighty voice.
My name is Adolf, I'm on the mike,
I'm gonna hip you to the story of the new third Reich!
It all started down in Munichtown, and pretty soon the word started getting around.
I said to Martin Boorman, I said "Hey Marty!"
"Why don't we throw a little Nazi party?!"
So we had an election -- well, kinda-sorta
And before you know it, hello, new order!
To all those mothers in the Fatherland, I said
Achtung, baby! I got me a plan!
They said "Whatchoo got, Adolf?"
"Whatchoo gonna do?"
I said, 'how about this one:
World War 2!'
You know me!
I used to run a little joint called "Germany".
I was number one! The people's choice.
And everybody listened to my mighty voice.
My name is Adolf, I'm on the mike,
I'm gonna hip you to the story of the new third Reich!
It all started down in Munichtown, and pretty soon the word started getting around.
I said to Martin Boorman, I said "Hey Marty!"
"Why don't we throw a little Nazi party?!"
So we had an election -- well, kinda-sorta
And before you know it, hello, new order!
To all those mothers in the Fatherland, I said
Achtung, baby! I got me a plan!
They said "Whatchoo got, Adolf?"
"Whatchoo gonna do?"
I said, 'how about this one:
World War 2!'
Mel Brooks as Adolf Hitler: so hilarious it should be illegal. My favorite part is the face he makes at 1:07- 1:08. I first thought that this clip was from The Producers, so I checked it out. As it turns out, this song is novelty song produced as part of a play about homosexuals in Nazi Germany, called "To Be or Not to Be".
My last book dealing with Germany this week is a bit of pleasure reading, called Germans into Nazis, written by Peter Fritzsche. As you can imagine, Fritzsche is writing to explore how Germany was transformed into Nazi Germany. I realize I say this a lot, but the book is highly readable and very informative. Fritzsche expresses his aim is to do away with some misconceptions about Nazim's rise in Germany. He divides the books into three parts: the Great War, the Weimar Years, and the Nazi rise to power. This is fairly straightforward. Along the way, he deals with misconceptions about Germany. I don't want to repeat them all, but will mention one as an example. The Great Depression is often seen as Hitler's opportunity to seize power, but Fitzsche doesn't think so. Those most affected by unemployment were laborers -- and laborers voted mostly for the Communist party, not the Nazis. The middle class was hardly affected, but their fear of being affected was enough to shape the political scene. The Nazis actually began to lose power right before Hindenburg declared Hitler chancellor. Had Hindenburg not done so, Fritzsche says, Nazism would have dwindled further and the world might not have witnessed the second global war. Again, the book is very readable.
During Thanksgiving, I read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Seeing as I quoted numerous parts of the book a couple of weeks ago, I see no real reason to comment on the book other than to express my enjoyment of it. While on the break, I also read The World of Rome, which I found to be quite fascinating. The book is by Michael Grant. The book was, as ever, enjoyable and informative. I'm picky about what books I take home with me: I read from them in the library to see if they're interesting enough to merit my attention. This may be why I so rarely encounter a book that isn't entertaining and informative.
Lastly, I read Montgomery: Biography of a City, by Wayne Greenshaw. This is obviously of personal interest to me, seeing as I grew up near Montgomery and visit it so often that I often refer to it as my hometown. The book was thin, and I thought this unusual. I was able to read the entire book in just thirty minutes, as a matter of fact. I'm a quick reader, but the book isn't really an in-depth history of the city. It covers the first 175 years of Montgomery's history, but each section is fairly short. WW1 and WW2 only merit a couple of pages each, for instance. The book was enjoyable enough, and I did learn something from it: namely, that the town is the result of two towns merging, and this is the reason the streets in the city center often don't meet one another as they ought. One city's streets were laid out in one direction and the other's in another.
http://www.alabamabound.org/images/montgomery.jpg
I googled for this picture to show the streets, and strangely enough Montgomery: the River City is also written by Greenshaw. This may support my idea that Biography of a City is intended for younger readers (hence it being so short) and The River City is intended for adult readers like myself. The picture doesn't show the street situation as clearly as I would like, but you can sort of see what I mean by looking at the left-center section of the book, between "The River" and "Wayne".
I intended to read that book about evolution this week, but what can I say? Biology bores me and I had a term paper and finals to prepare for.
Pick of the Week: The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operational Air War
In two days, I will be forced to pack my things and go back to Selma for the winter holiday. I rather like living in quiet Montevallo, so I am not looking forward to the move. Selma is quite dull. The only thing for me to do there is visit the library, and that I will be doing -- most assuredly. I am not sure what my reading will consist of during the Christmas break, but I know most assuredly that I will be reading some French history to prepare for my class, Christmas may be quiet enough that I might start updating weekly again, rather than once every two and a half weeks like I tend to do now.
Books I've checked out to read over the holiday:
- France 1814 - 1919: The Rise of a Liberal-Democratic Society by John B. Wolf
- The French Nation 1814 - 1940 by D.W. Brogan
- Humanism and America, edited by Norman Foerster. (This one should be interesting, having been written in 1930.)
- Greece and Rome: Builders of Our World
- Roman Life
I rarely mention the movies I watch from my libraries, which perhaps I should.
- Moby Dick, by Patrick Stewart. I checked this movie out during Thanksgiving and watched it then. I'm a fan of Patrick Stewart (his version of A Christmas Carol is the only one I watch every Christmas), so I wanted to watch this.
- Walking with the Dinosaurs: this movie is produced by the BBC. It is excellent, as I've come to expect from the BBC. The movie examines the three great ages of the dinosaurs (the Triassic, the Jurassic, and the Cretaceous) and brings the dinosaurs to life with computer imaging. They presented the movie as an actual documentary, and inserted the strangest little bits of realism. For instance, a dinosaur tail accidentally hits the "camera" when it beaches. In another section, a mother carnivore (I can't remember all of their names) had three hatchlings, and one of them was a mistfit for some reason. The narrator said that he probably would not last long. The film then cuts to other dinosaurs, but ten minutes later the view goes back to these carnivores. The narrator then says "Already there is no sign of the youngest", as if this was an actual documentary where real things actually happened. I found these little touches to be amusing.
- Before the Dinosaurs is produced by the Discovery Channel and "records" the life of animals that lived before the dinosaurs -- huge sea-dwelling scorpions, for instance, dragonflies with six-feet wingspans, and the first fish. The movie ends at the beginning of the Triassic Age, and I would bet that this movie was designed to be sort of a prequel to Walking with Dinosaurs because they show the same "first dinosaur" and say the same things about him, exactly.
- 1776: a musical about the Declaration of Independence. I had heard that William Daniels (Mr. Feeny in Boy Meets World)'s role as John Adams in this movie caused the high school that his Mr. Feeny character is principle of to be named John Adams High, but I had never seen the movie. Then a few weeks ago a friend of mine sent me a YouTube video of "But, Mr. Adams" and I was fairly hooked. I checked the movie out and liked it all the more. I like musicals, American history, and William Daniels, so I couldn't help but like this.
- Good Morning, Vietnam: I've been a fan of Robin Williams ever since I watched Jack. What I love about Robin Williams' acting is that his characters are so believably human. Other actors can be brilliant in some respects but "off" in others -- but not Williams'. This is especially true of Patch Adams, which I think is some of his best work. He doesn't disappoint in this movie; it's hilarious and moving as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)