"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))

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

An Officer and a Spy (Robert Harris, 2013)


(425 pp)

Book club selection (via PJr; session held 14 May, 2017).

Book held up well on second reading; see discussion here.  Also a good book club selection.  Plus the beer selection was good, also chicken divan.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

An Era of Darkness - The British Empire in India (Shashi Tharoor, 2016)

(291 pp)

The author argued during a speech at Oxford in 2015 that the British domination of India was deeply negative for India in pretty much every way.  The lecture ended up becoming very popular online - reportedly rapidly exceeding three million views on one site - and is now revised into book form.  Pretty clearly it struck a chord.  I know almost nothing of Indian politics but it sounds like a nationalist strain has emerged there in recent years (not equating this with nationalist strains elsewhere as I don't know if/how comparable) (Modi).

My untutored impression of the matter has always been that yes of course the Brits took advantage of the situation in India in various ways, and generally acted as racists - but that's sort of how things were done back then.  And I also have a vague impression that the Brits also were looking out for the Indians in many respects and seeking to make things better.  White man's burden sort of thing, I suppose.

This author makes a pretty compelling case that his viewpoint is more accurate (Brit influence almost entirely negative).

A few thoughts:

1.  Author makes interesting comparisons between India and England at the time of England's entry into east India - including India's relative economic strength, its long history compared to England's - and then offers comparisons between the two as a couple centuries roll by - with England consistently drawing off resources and interfering with whatever might have been the ordinary course of Indian economic development.  I don't know if the author's data is accurate or useful, but it's thought-provoking for sure.  Of course we don't exactly know how India would have developed with less or no interference - but its performance in the 21st century suggests it would have worked its way forward just fine.

2.  India paying for its own exploitation - essentially billed for all costs of running the country, etc.

3.  So many Englishmen making their fortunes in India.  This seems telling.

4.  Especially after the 1857 rising (or mutiny, as Brits would call it) - divide and conquer became a more conscious policy - emphasizing differences especially as between Hindu and Muslim (but also Sikh etc.).  Of course there were plenty of divisions independent of the Brit influence (including caste), but it's hard to believe that the situation wasn't antagonized; let alone the uncontrollable run-up that led to the Partition.

5.  Terrible famines.  Though not since Brits left.

6.  Brit's widespread presence and control not the result of a long-term strategic plan.  A business sets about making profit in a risky new market in 18th century, and learns how to take control of territories in support of the business plan.  Then the perimeter of the territory needs to be controlled, as well as the perimeter of the perimeter - the usual expansion rationale.  Then the crown takes over from the business after 1857.  One thing leads to the next in terms of territorial control, economic measures, etc.

7.  Assuming Brit influence was consistently malign - why didn't India rise up?  I think the explanation I usually see makes sense - that the Brits could tip the balance in various power struggles at the early stages and then - once in place - pick off control of additional states/territories by essentially cutting deals with the leadership.  Author argues this was pretty lucrative for the Brits and for the compliant local leaders, pretty negative for everyone else.

[Interesting that places like Peru and Mexico had similar experiences - an opening appears when the ruling party in disarray, rivals are rising, and a small force with advanced weaponry - and yes, no small measure of courage and/or greed - can then tip the balance and obtain outsized influence.]

Interesting throughout.  The author doesn't duck a fundamental question - the "so what" - even if Brit influence was deeply negative, India has been independent since 1947 and has adopted plenty of not-optimal policies in its own right - why burn energy looking back?  I think the usual answer applies - foundation myths are powerful in any country, and must be viewed critically if/as countries seek to move forward.

Thursday, May 04, 2017

The Millionaire and the Bard - Henry Folger's Obsessive Hunt for Shakespeare's First Folio (Andrea Mays, 2015)

(281 pages)

Surprisingly similar to this just-read book.  In both cases the author tries to make a book-length story out of something that should be much shorter.  And the stories are somewhat similar - seeking earliest copies of some of the most famous, and best, literature in the world.  With way too much time spent on the details of the chase - when more information about the historical setting would have been far more useful.

The Quaritch book store in London (which I'd never heard of previously) even figures in both stories.

Henry Folger made his money as a senior executive with John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil companies.  Somehow he got the collecting bug - but unlike many wealthy collectors in those days, he specialized.  And ended up with a colossal haul of Shakespeare materials.

The most interesting part was the explanation about why Shakespeare himself hadn't bothered putting the works into formal written format; the source materials that the two compilers - both knew Shakespeare well - could have worked from in coming up with the First Folio.  The printing process.  Paper was expensive!  Shakespeare not so widely known for some time, then becomes much more recognized as 18th century passes.  Samuel Johnson a big fan.

Biographical information on Folger, of course, including details about his disposition of the collection.  Mrs. Folger a key player throughout.

Now I need to visit the Folger Shakespeare Library.

Monday, May 01, 2017

Guard of Honor (James Gould Cozzens, 1948)

(631 pp)

Saw a couple highly favorable references so thought I'd give it a try.  I liked it.

Won Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1948.

Story takes places over three days; almost all of the action takes place at a fictional Florida base for the Army Air Forces (I think this preceded a separate Air Force?)  Quite a few characters, but focus on just a few and the character development is strong.

Beyond just the story-telling, I think this is useful in giving a glimpse of how the military might have felt on a domestic base in 1942 (in that respect sometimes made me think of this excellent novel); the way that career Army fellows interacted with one another (with the combat vets in particular bonded closely); the contrasting way that civilian types in the Army operated as among themselves and with the career guys - effective, respected, but just not as closely tied in.  Early 1940s army was full of draftees or enlistees - in this respect the story line mostly involves professional public relations and media types (which I learned was the author's role in the war).  Glimpses of the unwritten rules among the military types as they cope with issues and decisions.

"Bus" Beal is the general in charge - correctly views himself as a "flyboy" - never to be an all-star administrative-general type, but also the kind of person that is needed to win wars.  Most of the story line involves Captain Hicks and Colonel Ross - civilians.  Issues arise at a Florida base when a contingent of Negro flyers and support folks arrive, with Washington DC intending that this will become a showcase unit.

Amanda Turck.  Beal's wing-man - Benny Carricker.  Mrs. Ross; Mrs. Beal; Lippa; Captain Wiley (Southerner with combat experience); Jo Jo Nichols; Colonel Mowbray; etc.