"To compensate a little for the treachery and weakness of my memory, so extreme that it has happened to me more than once to pick up again, as recent and unknown to me, books which I had read carefully a few years before . . . I have adopted the habit for some time now of adding at the end of each book . . . the time I finished reading it and the judgment I have derived of it as a whole, so that this may represent to me at least the sense and general idea I had conceived of the author in reading it." (Montaigne, Book II, Essay 10 (publ. 1580))

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Animal Farm (George Orwell, 1946)

The story is familiar.

The inevitable end-point of centralized political/ideological control:  "All animals are equal.  But some are more equal than others."  Boxer's death - compelling. 

I haven't read this since high school.  I'm sure it was quite interesting in high school - but (as often when I think of books read back then) - I wonder what I then thought of it.  I pretty much read it in an information vacuum.  Now - nigh 40 years later - have had the benefit of much more reading about Russia, Communism, the Spanish Civil War, political environment when this was written in the 1940s.  Maybe I get half of Orwell's allusions now?  What percentage did I get in high school (when I wouldn't have even known about Leon Trotsky)?  What percentage if I read this again in 20 years?

Another thing I hadn't realized was the extent of Orwell's commitment to socialism - given the nature of the book, I would have assumed he opposed.  But the foreword to this edition indicates that he was then a true believer - had fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the Soviet-supported government against the Nazi (fascist)-supported rebels - but left after seeing the murderous nature of the Russian "support."  Animal Farm was supposed to debunk the myth of the Russian version of socialism, to help prospects in other socialist systems. 

Good .  Short.  Effective.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Les Miserables (Victor Hugo, 1862)

It's a pretty wonderful thing to be able to read a book like this.  It's fascinating to think about how many folks have read it since its 1862 release (an immediate sensation), the variety of stage and movie adaptations, etc.  The preface indicated that the very first full-length feature film in the United States - in 1905 - was Les Miserables.

I am again struck with how reading at a reasonably steady clip enriches pretty much every experience.  As just one example - each book enriches the reading of future books.  The opportunity  to read quite a bit about France certainly enhanced the experience of reading Les Miserables.  (Though the book obviously works very well no matter what the reader brings to it!)

Hugo's work helps pull together many of the 19th century threads in French history.

I of course have many impressions of this work from the stage play (and listening to the CD) - one can see phrases in the book that became lyrics.  Even if there are quite a few changes in the stage play.

Basically, a 1200-page canvas permits Hugo to do so many things - in-depth development of so many characters in multiple settings over a multi-year period; lengthy digressions on a wide variety of topics; etc.    

It's interesting that he sets the scenes in the barricades in 1832 - Hugo had experienced the far-more-significant 1848 upheavals first-hand (and even went into voluntary exile when Napoleon III took power in 1852), and certainly the 1830 situation (which brought Louis Philippe to power) was more compelling.

The 1832 insurrection, or riot, never really went anywhere.  Something that I didn't really like in the stage play was what felt like a glorification of the barricades - while so much of what went on seemed needlessly violent, mixed motives, etc.  The book is much more nuanced on this subject - very interesting reflections on the diference between riot, insurrection, revolution.

Hugo evolved from royalist to republican over the years.  Some of his digressions go into how crowds form, why the population becomes disenchanted, etc.  Sophisticated discussion (around p. 690 in this edition) regarding the same issues being pushed around today (including by the "Occupy Wall Street" posers) - how to create an equitable system - he's careful to say it shouldn't be equal, or no one would work - prescient.  

I'm always amazed at how well-read these authors were - dropping references all over the place to historical events, the classics, other books, etc.  This translation included 130 delightful pages of footnotes (on top of the 1200 pages of the novel) - fascinating!  I'm reading Plutarch's Lives at the gym right now and had been struck with the fabulous response of the Gauls to the Romans (in bio of Fabius) when questioned about taking territory; Hugo weaves it into one of the allusions in this book (p. 896).  And so many more.

Oh, and then there's the story itself - Thenardier, Fantine, Eponine, Gavoche, the group of revolutionaries (repeating all of the utopian tropes that no longer sound fresh, at all) , Marius, his grandfather, Mabeuf, the bishop (Digne), the old conventionist (the bishop requests "your blessing"), the gang of crooks, Javert, Cosette, Jean Valjean, etc.  Digressions on every angle - Paris neighborhoods, French history, the convent, reflections on the strict monastic life (Hugo = not impressed), reflections on the Paris sewers(!).  On and on.

I was very nervous during the scene where Thenardier and the other crooks were capturing "Monsieur Leblanc" and Marius was watching through the wall.

I liked Hugo's lengthy description of the Waterloo battlefield and the circumstances of the battle; reminded me of Vanity Fair.   That battle mattered to folks.

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Postwar - A History of Europe Since 1945 (Tony Judt, 2005)

This book is remarkably useful.

I am captivated by European history in general - but never had much of an interest in anything following WWII.  I think this is because I lived through most of this history - it didn't seem as exotic or interesting.  What a mistaken view.

Judt gave me all sorts of information and ideas.  This book - 900 pages - is so thoroughly dog-eared that I'm going to have to go through it and fix things as best I can before returning it to the library.  (That is, after I buy a copy so I can put those dog-ears into my own copy.)

There are so many things going on - and much of this is helpful in interpreting European developments (including, among others, today's headlines about the troubles in the Euro-zone).

1.  When read about in the context of the post-war doings, I'm struck with the thought that the extent of the 20th century carnage in Europe was even greater than I've imagined.  No wonder Europeans were not interested in going back to war, focused on economic union, etc.  Especially with the US providing a security blanket and the USSR (not to mention Germany itself) providing a common threat.  The 30-year war (1914-1945) was devastating, beyond belief.

2.  As part of the carnage - minority populations within states often had been exterminated, migrated away, swapped with other states - the diversity within the European states was a fraction of what had existed in 1900.  What an odd thought - this probably assisted stability in the immediate postwar years  Exceptions:  states like Yugoslavia and elsewhere in the Balkans, where at-odds populations still clustered together.  (Of course new minorities (Islamic) have since arrived throughout Europe.)

3.  The extent of collaboration with the Nazis was much greater than the official narratives suggested.  France, the Netherlands, Norway - go through the list - if collaborators were disqualified, the countries couldn't have operated post-war.  There was conscious forgetting - necessary to move forward.  But created backlashes later, slowly leading to generally-helpful public recognition of what went on.  This story is still unfolding.

4.  Particularly true (and necessary) in Germany itself - conscious forgetting ruled the day.  Former Nazis or Nazi sympathizers continued to run the country for the most part, with a few surviving Nazi opponents also involved.

(I will say it's difficult to be terribly judgmental as to the collaborators - who can say what that situation was like?  Pushing back was generally futile, not to mention dangerous to one's health - and to the health of one's family and townspeople.  How did people cope??)

5.  Germany's economic importance to postwar Europe was recognized immediately - accompanied by continuing fear of Germany, and fear that it would backslide into aggression.  No one admitted it publicly, but both East and West ended up preferring the split Germany that emerged.

6.  The social bargain in England - Beveridge plan - seeking security and peace at home through the state taking over functions - predictable difficult results - then Thatcherism - backlash - now facing a welfare state expense load with less dynamic economy, culture of dependence and entitlement.

The people that endured wars and rebuilt Europe in miraculous manner - now seem entirely drained of initiative.

7.  A version of the England story all over Europe - interesting implications for the US as we debate how far to go with the welfare state.

8.  The various pacts that led to the European Union.  Bribing farmers to reach a deal (especially in France) - a critical problem even today.  Diminishing voter interest nowadays - too disconnected from Brussels bureaucrats.  Concerns about common currency for weak countries expressed from the very beginning (coming home to roost now).

9.  Communism hanging on in the East - just an amazing set of stories.  How could countries be frozen in time like this?  (I say this, yet there are frozen-in-time, backward dictatorships all over the world, to this day.)

10.  Communism finally unmasked even to its sympathizers - easy to see why no one believes in it (except on college campuses). The fall of Communism - almost unbelievable to recall how a terrifying power structure basically dropped overnight like the proverbial house of cards. 

11.  Owning up to what happened with the Jews seemed to be particularly difficult - many countries tried to fold the Jewish extermination into the larger national stories of mistreatment at Nazi hands (which stories were indeed quite awful in their own right).  But the Jewish extermination was truly different both qualitatively and quantitatively - and often assisted (or even led) by local populations rather than the Nazis.  Very belated recognition; I think this helps explain why the topic receives so much attention today - to the point of overload for some - it was hidden/ignored for so long.

The amazingly quick economic recovery; the end of European wars; notwithstanding plenty of problems and challenges, the post-war story is pretty impressive.

Judt is extremely readable - and covering this much territory over so many years had to be a daunting task.  I feel he is pretty balanced, though I don't know the subject matter well enough to judge.  He does take several gratuitous shots at GW Bush toward the end of the narrative which probably illuminates his politics. 

I liked this, a lot.