Goethe - Life as a Work of Art (Rudiger Safranski, 2013)

I spent a lot of time on this biography.  Not quite sure what I think of Goethe, or what I learn from this.

I read a Goethe biography in 2006 that did a very good job of outlining his life; this biography is discussed here.  

The author of the current biography had greater access to diaries and letters of Goethe and folks with whom he was in contact.  That was interesting.

Part of the interest is Goethe as a leading figure starting in the 1770s - royalty doing quite well, even the minor royalty in the German principalities. Along comes the French Revolution (with agitation for democracy and nationalism in France), the Napoleonic era (with this agitation spreading along with the French armies and encompassing the substates in Germany), Napoleon's defeat and the conservative if not reactionary governments throughout Europe, with Metternich as a key figure.  Then the revolution in France again in 1830.  Goethe lived through all of this and was personally acquainted with all these leaders.

He started out with an early "Romantic era" book (The Sorrows of Young Werther) that took the literary world by storm - somehow striking just the right chord at just the right moment. (It's what Napoleon wanted to talk about in their meeting decades later.) This success - of course supplemented by later actions - facilitated "famousness" throughout his long life.  His life took a major turn when the grand duke in charge of Weimar persuaded him to settle there - a smallish state, it was a coup to land Goethe; the grand duke put Goethe in charge of all sorts of things even though Goethe had little expertise. It made him a much more practical person, if not a conservative as the decades rolled along.  Very impressed by Napoleon and wore the French Legion of Honor (awarded to him by Napoleon) all too often for the tastes of many Germans.

Went through a genuine scare when French troops occupied Weimar, including his residence.  Contributed to his dislike of disorder, nationalism, public passions, etc.

Seems like he was an incredibly gifted person in terms of social skills, and could apply this to both men and women. Descriptions of his romantic relationships; seems like he took advantage of his skills in some situations where he should have refrained. 

The 2006 biography talks about the famous people he interacted with.

Uncanny ability to compose poetry and write all sorts of kinds of literature. Difficulty finishing longer works.

Migrating away from Sturm und Drang - he took a great interest in minerology, sparked by his position as official in charge of Weimar mines.  Another favorite topic - how humans perceive color.  As the years by he kept writing but felt that pursuits in the natural sciences were more worthy.

By the time he passed away in the early 1830s - time had passed him by.  Not popular with young Germans.  Seems like his reputation has recovered, though I don't know how much his works are read.

Not sure what to make of him. 

Martin Luther - Renegade and Prophet (Lyndal Roper, 2017)

(416 pp)

Martin Luther can't help but fascinate; it's the 500th anniversary of posting the 95 Theses; this book received favorable reviews; so it seemed like time to read more about him.  I much liked it.

(Initially nervous because the author tries to differentiate this bio from the massive stack of extant Luther bios by claiming a focus on "psychological" factors - ugh - but other than a bunch of references to Luther's father, and a passing reference to Freud, this element didn't much get in the way.)

What to make of Luther?  Certainly in the early going he appears clear-thinking, engaging, earthy; vaguely (very vaguely) reminiscent of Napoleon personality traits (or perhaps Napoleon is just top of mind these days).  Luther also adept at public relations - very impressive in Luther's case given the newness of print technology.  As far as PR - in addition to the printers, Cranach's shop churned out those memorable drawings.

Shows lots of courage in those early days ("here I stand") - this at a time when protection of his local "elector" wasn't necessarily a sure thing.  He stood up to the church hierarchy and Charles V.

Yes there were plenty of Germans sick of the Italians, and getting pushed around by local bishops; and the corruption in the central Roman Catholic structure was pretty overwhelming at this time (as discussed here).  So while Luther no doubt benefited from timing (again reminiscent of the Napoleon/"great man" discussion/French Revolution timing), it certainly seems that a unique individual was required to push reforms forward.  For starters, being put to death was a huge risk.

Author does a good job of explaining why Luther was such an unlikely candidate for what he did - modest education, grew up in what was then a backwater in Germany.

Some much less positive traits emerge if not predominate as the years go by.  Seems that the lengthy confinement in the castle - for Luther's protection - took a toll.  Deeply anti-Semitic.  "Protestants" (not sure when that term came into usage) were taking different paths; Luther seemed to rather like his first/supreme role, and as the years went by was never able to work very well with others.  Too often didn't even engage in useful discussions - just said "the devil" was driving his foes (reminiscent of how "racism" or "fascism" is used today).  Combative, insulting, personal. 

Also became pretty conservative - again, after the castle episode - realized he needed the elector and his ilk to survive - spoke out against the Peasants War, and generally advised submission to authority.  Which - coming from him - was rather rich.

Married a nun - a nice touch - several children - described as a loving father.

Lots of debate over the "Real Presence" issue in the Eucharist - many Protestants wanted to say it was symbolic, Luther kept insisting on a literal Real Presence.  Divisive issue, hard to now imagine how much energy was expended on this.

Enduring contributions in hymns, German translation of the Bible.

Luther dies in 1546.  Lots of bloodshed ahead.

Napoleon - A Life (Andrew Roberts, 2014)

(810 pages)

Napoleon's story line is pretty familiar by now . . . pops up in so many books/contexts . . . but this author had access to more of his letters than previous biographers - 33,000 letters in total . . . so it seemed like a good idea to re-up.  And it was - this bio is readable, useful.

After reading all those letters - the author was generally sympathetic to Napoleon.

I have the impression that the "great man" [person] theory of history is pretty much out of fashion, and I'd think for good reason.  Still - if any one person can be said to have moved the needle - Napoleon is a pretty good candidate.  Amazing accomplishments across a broad range of topics at a very young age.  Everyone is reacting to him across all of Europe for many decades - politics, military, legal, arts.  (Interesting that Tolstoy was sufficiently moved by Napoleon to include as a central theme of this novel a refutation of "great man" theory.)

A few thoughts:

1.  Only in the chaos resulting from the Revolution could someone like this advance so rapidly.  (Not a criticism - he dealt with the circumstances as they existed.)

2.  In his youth - into adulthood - he read high quality books incessantly.  Viewed this as the best possible preparation.  Agreed!

3.  Of course ambitious - very much so - wanted to be remembered like Alexander or Caesar.

4.  Yet able to connect with common soldiers; really with pretty much anyone - including British jailers - generally a good listener, able to absorb competing viewpoints and modify his own.

5.  Author cites some major blind spots - economics (believed the Continental System would work); naval operations; putting his brothers in charge of key tasks; obsessed with Britain.

6.  Biggest blind spot in my view - perhaps willful - pursuing policies/campaigns that resulted in the deaths of so many soldiers.  And exhausted France.  There had to be a better way.  The "ambition" problem.

7.  Military genius - seems definitely yes - innovator; though he fared less well as opponents adopted his innovations.  Stories of the famous battles.  Perceptive, decisive, personally brave.

8.  Must have been an all-around genius - not just military.  Rapid-fire and on-target decision-making in an astonishing array of subjects.  Could handle both big picture and details - rare.  Prolific letter writer - how things got done.

9.  "Enlightenment on horseback" - gets back to Paris after initial wars, implements Code Napoleon - the truly lasting contribution; influence throughout Europe.

10.  Information on Elba and St. Helena largely new to me.

Napoleon impresses, mightily.

Incarnations - A History of India in Fifty Lives (Sunil Khilnani, 2016)

The author observes that India is often discussed in terms of groups and areas - that with few exceptions, we hear little about individuals.  So he sets out to write a book consisting entirely of short biographies of 50 individuals that he considers highly important in Indian history.  (Not all are Indian.)

I saw some favorable reviews; also a fair amount of criticism - how do you select the "right" 50? How to properly describe each in a few pages?  No doubt there are flaws.  But for an uninformed reader like me, I think this book is highly useful.  If nothing else it reinforces that India is really large, and really complicated, and has a history that is really long.

Geography, religion, caste, race, distance, language, etc.  "Diverse" doesn't begin to capture it - in some ways it seems almost impossible that India is even a single country (and one that probably should have been formed with Pakistan).

[Was thinking that the U.S. has many of the same potentially divisive factors but also many unifying principles not applicable to India - a far shorter history; everyone arrived as immigrants so expressly or implicitly "signed on" to the American project at some level; everyone learns English (so far); somehow our shared secular religion (in "America" as an idea), or perhaps just all the prosperity, or some combination, seems to override, for the most part, allegiance to particular religions that creates divisions elsewhere.  Etc.]

Not going to try to summarize 50 bios!  Mixture of religious, literary, artistic, political, figures from across the country; I tried to focus on those from the south.

Read the book - good baseline info!

Also:  would enjoy feedback from anyone that knows something about these 50.

Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven (John Eliot Gardiner, 2013)

I feel a connection to Bach that is unlike whatever connection I feel to any other musician, or artist.  Quite possibly this is due to the sheer weight of cumulative exposure - my undergraduate piano teachers (and Joseph Henderson, who taught me for a semester during law school) emphasized Bach.  I've read four or five books (including this one) focused on Bach.  I listen to his works incessantly.  His B minor Mass (courtesy Phoenix Chorale) was, I believe, my single favorite concert ever.

So there's that.

This book is uniquely helpful.  The author writes beautifully and knowledgeably . . . but there is a depth here because the author also is a world-renowned musician who has directed Bach's works with pretty much unprecedented historical accuracy, precision, success.

Gardiner gave me a notion of the utter impossibility of JS Bach - the working conditions, the incredible volume of productivity, the sublime quality.  How could this be??

Gardiner gives me the idea that Bach could only have existed at that moment in that place - maybe that's true for all us, but it's true in an incredibly interesting way for Bach.  Born and bred in an old-school Lutheran style in a society still immersed in its agrarian, seasonal-cycle roots - but exposed to (and benefiting from) modernizing social developments and musical elements, including elements outside Germany.

As I've read elsewhere - the notion (foreign to us today) that someone like Bach was essentially a low-paid clerk-type figure, forced to deal with municipal flunkies, indifferent students, etc.  OK I just overstated that a bit - folks like Bach were recognized as unusual talents in their spheres - but overstated just a bit.  The towering figure of the "artist" did not yet exist.

I need to get to Leipzig, Eisenach, Thomaskirche.

It's really all too incredible. What a gift to us courtesy JS Bach, how does this happen?

Lina & Serge - The Love & Wars of Lina Prokofiev (Simon Morrison, 2013)

A very interesting and personal (due to access to family correspondence) look at what happened to Lina Prokofiev - and also of great interest from a general-historical perspective as her experiences unfold across the big events of the 20th century, with a focus on Russia.

(Also the story is made more interesting to us as we learn more about, and increasingly like, Prokofiev's music; for example Alexander Nevsky (performed with MusicFest in 2013), plus his second piano concerto performed with Phoenix Symphony by the 2013 Van Cliburn winner while I was in the midst of this book.)

Lina's mother was Russian; her father was Spanish; she tended to identify with the Russian side due to a grandmother.  The parents were actor/singer types of mediocre stature; ended up in U.S. to do performances, so Lina mostly grew up here, mostly in NY.  She aspired to be a singer - nice soprano voice but not quite enough.  Family was well-connected in Russian emigre circles.  She meets the talented Serge Prokofiev - somewhat struggling to break through notwithstanding his talent - and fell in love with him.  Serge seemed to behave mostly like a jerk throughout; she follows him to Europe; he finally agrees to marry after a number of years (once she's pregnant).

1930s - for propaganda purposes, Stalin wants Russian artists to come home (many had fled in aftermath of Bolshevik revolution) - Serge and Lina are enticed to return with promises of special treatment, honors, artistic freedom, etc.  Misgivings; they are tailed while in Paris during this time; but Serge felt the opportunity would be better in the Soviet Union, especially based on a Potemkin tour, I'll call it, arranged while they were considering their decision.

Once there - not possible to defect.  Some relatively good times early and they did live with special privileges; this fluctuates as Serge moves in and out of favor; Lina's singing career doesn't take off though they do perform together some; she is suspect to the authorities because of friendships with foreigners via embassies.  Tense, difficult, quite unimaginable.

Serge falls in love with a younger woman; is evacuated from Moscow as Hitler invades; Lina left behind to cope, with their two sons.  She was able to get excused after a day or so from the amazing tasks performed by the citizen teams digging tank traps on Moscow periphery - in favor of a desk job - but endured the bombing and food shortages (all as discussed here).  After the war - she's sent to the gulag for a 10-year sentence (or a "tenner" as these were called in Solzhenitsyn's book).  Just an amazing story, and she must have been a really tough individual.  Eventually released after Stalin dies.

Sad and sad.  Compelling throughout.  What folks like this lived through = just unbelievable.

Dostoevsky - A Writer in His Time (Joseph Frank, 2010)

At this point I'm pretty sure I find Dostoevsky more compelling than Tolstoy - which is saying a lot.

The author spent the better part of three decades putting together a 2500 page biography of Dostoevsky; his work later was condensed to the 900-page version described here.  I thought it was quite wonderful, quite compelling throughout.

Dostoevsky could hardly be a more interesting character.  His temperament or personality was of the type that deeply soaked up his life experiences - so deeply that I would think this contributed to some of his ongoing health issues.  And this temperament was fed with a succession of life experiences that provided endless fuel for his novels.

There's also the time-and-place in which he lived - Russia in the throes of continuing social and political ferment during second half of 19th century - Dostoevsky deeply interested, and playing a meaningful role for several decades.

The life experiences are just amazing:  adored mother dies while he is very young; domineering if well meaning father continually imposing will, though dies when Dostoevsky is only in late teens; unhappy experiences in military engineering school attended per father's diktat; continual shortage of funds; some early success among highest literary circles in Russia but it doesn't stick; gets caught up in the political turmoil of the day, including materials not appreciated by a repressive state; arrested, questioned, spent some time in prison; sentenced to death and taken to prison courtyard to be executed, only to have sentence commuted to exile in Siberia (authorities planned commutation all along but Dostoevsky didn't have an inkling - the near-death experience was entirely real to him); shipped to Siberia; in jail in exile with population consisting primarily of serfs (his first exposure of this nature, and he drew some dubious conclusions about the depth of character of these folks); unhappily married to a woman met in Siberia (she dies); eventually had his civil rights restored and resumes writing; constant money problems; severe gambling problem; had the good fortune to meet a second wife who probably can be said to have saved him; loss of infant child; dealing with severe epilepsy throughout his adult life; deadline pressure when writing for monthly publications; financial pressure never really solved; Crime and Punishment a break-through event; develops and sticks to a deep belief, from Siberian days, in Christ - but a Russian version; staunch supporter of the tsar (notwithstanding earlier views - this is linked to the serf-Russo-Christian belief set however that's described); embarrassingly anti-Semitic; monthly publication Diary of a Writer dominates Russian political discussion for a couple years; young people somehow relate to an aging and now-conservative voice; famous and revered in later days; unthinkable evolution from convicted exile to tutor to members of tsar's family; the public reading at the Pushkin memorial that moves those in attendance so deeply.

The life story is just too amazing if not surreal.

This book also goes into a lot of detail about Dostoevsky's novels, and links them to events in his life and in Russian society, culture and politics.  The right sequence here is to read the biography after reading the novels - this made for a fascinating re-visitation of the books.  And pretty much demands a complete re-read.  Applies to all of the major novels, but especially to The Brothers Karamazov - the background provided here makes the book far more astonishing than I could have imagined.  I liked the book but definitely didn't "get it" in terms of most of what Dostoevsky was doing.

Do any modern authors attempt anything remotely like what Dostoevsky sought to do in The Brothers Karamazov?  (Even just the portion involving the legend of the Grand Inquisitor?)

Those who follow today's political debates - including the blandishments of the progressive wing - would benefit a great deal from reading the 19th century version of the discussions.  There's so little that's new.

There is an incredible amount of useful, interesting material here.  Not sure how to process all of it.  Highly valuable book.

Robert Schumann - The Life and Work of a Romantic Composer (Martin Geck, 2010)

As with this book by the same author, I'm trying to read stuff that might give me some kind of window into how composers work.  It's not really working (though the books are enjoyable enough in their own right).

A few Schumann thoughts:

1.  His efforts (successful) to marry Clara Weick are pretty well-known.  Hard to say that Clara's piano-teacher father was wrong to be a bit wary of young Schumann - who seems at least in his early days to have had a Werther-type Romantic personality.  Which seems to have gotten worse over time.

2.  Schumann was a very successful and creative writer in addition to his composing efforts.  Didn't have any idea he was doing so much musical criticism.

3.  I do find quite interesting the lives of these young folks in Germany in the post-Napoleonic years, the run-up to the 1848 disturbances, etc.  Schumann definitely caught up in this.

4.  The struggles of German composers to live up to, or move beyond, Beethoven.  Haven't appreciated how high his stature was - seemed to make it very difficult or impossible for others to even attempt symphonies.

5.  Interesting stories of his efforts to romance Clara - using pseudonyms etc. to work around the recalcitrant father.  Clara as quite an impressive figure - virtuoso pianist, incredibly supportive wife willing to subordinate her career.  They had a large family.

6.  I've found Thomas Mann's discussions of music very interesting (especially in his take on Faustus); this author refers to Mann's capacity to do this well, and uses an illustration from Buddenbrooks.

7.  How much these folks loved Bach (whose work was rediscovered, if that's the right term, by Schumann's contemporary, Mendelssohn)!  Schumann wrote out The Art of Fugue as a way to try to understand it.  Devoted to  The Well-Tempered Clavier and The Musical Offering as well.

8.  Friendly with Mendelssohn and Liszt.

9.  Became very close to Johannes Brahms - maybe 15 years Schumann's junior.  And who ended up very much in love with Clara, it seems.  This author wasn't pushing to develop a scandal-theme (and who knows if there was much of anything to support it anyway).   Certainly was a helpful support as Schumann deteriorated.

10.  Anxious, nervous personality - ended up in asylum, and died there in 1856 (age 46).  Clara lived another 40 years.

Still don't know much about how he went about doing his work.  Oh well.

Johann Sebastian Bach - Life and Work (Martin Geck, 2000) (translated 2006)

Bach seems impossible.  How could he produce so much high-quality art?

I rather like this reviewer's take on this question:  "Consider: A professionally competent 18th-century burgher raised a very large family, came and went as a busy and productive musical technician, associated himself for nearly three decades with a church in Leipzig whose school of 55 boys he taught music while also training a choir. He provided his employers with the cantatas they required for Sundays and feast days and was active in the civic musical collegium. He traveled, though sparingly, and spent tedious hours copying out his own material. He was disputatious about a lot of things but was finally submissive to the requisite councilors, dukes and princes. When the end came, he left behind, in the city of 32,000 souls, a huge family, an indigent widow and a library of compositions which would ordain him as the greatest musical artist who ever lived."

So what happened here?  The author provides all sorts of interesting information, but I guess there's no figuring out how Bach did it.  Bach was anything but the lonely-genius-artist - he was an engaged family man with a demanding day job.

As I get older, I spend more and more time with Bach's music.  And I'm pretty sure the greatest concert I've ever attended was  this presentation of the B minor mass).  (Interesting to read that Beethoven bought his own copy of this work a century after it was written.)

The last portion of the book focused on technical details - for me, sort of like reading a foreign language - I just don't anything about composition or theory.

I'm pretty sure I need to attend a Bach concert at this church in Leipzig.

Two and Three-Part Inventions
Well-Tempered Clavier
French Suites
Goldberg Variations
The Musical Offering
The Art of Fugue
Cantatas, Motets, etc. (thankful for youtube access)
Brandenburg Concerto
St. Matthew Passion
St. John Passion
B minor Mass
Etc.
Etc.

Catherine the Great - Portrait of a Woman (Robert K. Massie, 2011)

This was interesting and a quick read, but I didn't like it as much as this book by Massie, and certainly not as much as Massie's Peter the Great and Nicholas and Alexandra.

Peter the Great rules 1682 through 1725; Elizabeth 1741 through 1762; Catherine from 1762 through 1796.

Frederick the Great rules 1740 - 1786.  Followed by three Frederick Williams; then Wilhelm I (in power at time of Bismark's unification).  (Wilhelm II rules 1888 - 1918 (his father died after about 90 days as king).)

The value here was in getting a better fix on where Catherine fits in.  The annoyance was all the gossipy content - it was mostly a distraction though I suppose it would help understand some of her behavior; I guess this is how you drive bestseller status in a biography.  Whatever.

I can see where she would be regarded as one of the most important empress/queen types, alongside Elizabeth I.

Thoughts:

1.  Not terribly remarkable that minor nobility from a minor Prussian state would become betrothed to Russia's emperor-to-be.  Very remarkable how she took the position and ran with it, to say the least.

2.  Peter III was a pretty weird guy - obsessed with Frederick the Great and Prussia, tone deaf to Russia.  Catherine basically taking his throne via coup, with widespread military support.

3.  Unfortunate and very convenient that he - and the other potential contestant for the throne (Ivan) - died in captivity.  (Catherine not particularly hurt by the suspicions as to her role.)

4.  Empress Elizabeth brought Catherine to Russia and promoted her marriage to Peter III.

5.  Potemkin (yes, of the village fame) and his important role.  Peter the Great pointing Russia westward and obtaining Baltic access; Catherine continuing this, getting Black Sea access.

6.  Catherine and the three partitions of Poland - this is where Poland essentially disappeared in late 18th century, not to reappear until after World War I.  (Which reappearance turned out to be quite temporary.)

7.  Ruled for decades, died in 1796.

8.  Pretty much self-educated; initial attraction to the ideals of the philosophes; spent lots of time with Diderot; constant correspondence with Voltaire; tried to refashion Russian law; ended up deciding that strict authoritarianism was the way to go.

9.  Horrified by French Revolution; this contributed to authoritarianism (though she had settled on that path far earlier); this also provided some slight rationale for the dismemberment of Poland.

10.  The author really seemed to promote Catherine - who no doubt was important and talented - but focuses very much on her generosity, her wisdom in purchasing art works and building palaces, etc. - without ever asking where the money was coming from and what that all meant.

Velazquez and The Surrender of Breda (Anthony Bailey, 2011)

There's just something about these newspaper and magazine writers that turn to writing books - they aren't as good at it.  Not sure how to explain, it's like they try too hard.

This was interesting, but not as much as I would have expected based on the review I had seen.  Part of the problem is that Velazquez - for all his talent and wide recognition - didn't leave much behind in terms of primary sources.  The author has quite a bit of information about what Velazquez was doing at different points in his life, but cannot really bring the biography to life because he is just guessing so much of the time.

Useful ideas:

1.  Helps connect ideas about a wealthy Spain - less than a century after Columbus showed up in the Americas - with ~20 years less since the days of Martin Luther - struggling to keep control of Protestant Netherlands.  Charles V gives up, replaced by Philip II.  Bloody, unnecessary, protracted struggle.  Gave rise to the titular picture.

2.  Velazquez talent identified early; he advances to court in Madrid and is favored with royal commissions thereafter.  Loved to travel to Italy.  Took on lots of administrative tasks.  Reminded me of the stories of Bach as more or less an employee, or of Goethe taking on governing tasks in Weimar. The idea of the artist as romantic/independent/superior hadn't arrived.

3.  The famous Las Meninas - pictures in pictures.  Parents visible in mirror, watching the scene being painted by the artist . . . who is watching them . . . etc.

4.  Spain continuing to hurt itself with expulsions of Jews and "Moors".  Closed, insular, Church-dominated.

5.  Velazquez not dominant in commercial art market because his works simply don't come to market.  But considered to be highly favored.  Proust has the Duc de Guermantes buying a painting that he hopes is a Valazquez; Swann doesn't support this.

Las Meninas

Churchill's War Lab (Taylor Downing, 2011) (Overlook Press!)

Gift from my brother Charlie via my goddaughter's (now former) employer - The Overlook Press.

For starters: anything involving Winston Churchill has to be interesting.  So much history is more interesting than fiction; his life is an extreme example.  The book spent a fair amount of time reviewing his biography.  I remember the Des Moines Register making a big deal out of his death and funeral in the 1960s (I just looked it up, it was 1965).  Meaning I remember a guy who was in the last large-scale cavalry attack (Omdurman), was in the Boer War, correspondent, author, heavily involved in WWI, social legislation in London, India.  And then of course there was something about him with standing up to Hitler, WWII and the Iron Curtain thereafter.  Etc.  Well beyond amazing.

The book purports to be about "Code-Breakers, Scientists, and the Mavericks Churchill Led to Victory."  And it sort of is - but doesn't go into a ton of detail about this.  Sort of a blend of biography, WWII overview, some of the technical stuff.  As far as I'm concerned, it's a good mix - a lot of the technical stuff would be beyond my understanding anyway.

Author says Churchill supported the development of "land ships" circa 1915, disguised as "water tanks", later as "tanks".  Maybe that part about naming the vehicle is true - where else would the word come from?

The cover photo is amusing, though the author reports that WC never used a tommy gun.

I liked the book.

Charles Dickens - A Life (Claire Tomalin, 2011)

Lots of folks recommend reading biographies, but I typically don't even pull them off the shelf (to use outdated terminology).   (So it makes some sense that the "biography" tag in the box at left only leads to about 15 hits - though I do admit to liking most of that group quite a bit).  I do like biographies more if the author is using the life-story primarily as an interesting perspective to illustrate the times in which the "biographee" was living.

That's a long way of saying I didn't enjoy this book very much.  I signed it out because of several glowing reviews.  And it did provide some information about 19th century London.  But I far preferred this biography and its setting in 18th century London.  And I just don't care all that much about what the research has uncovered about Dickens's specific doings, his marital problems, his girlfriend, whatever.

Not news, but amazing to think about:  the wealth of characters that he created, and his overwhelming popularity (especially in Britain and in the U.S. (notwithstanding a rocky initial visit)).  A couple factors that contributed to the popularity:  (1) his evident sympathy for the working classes; and (2) the decision to serialize his novels - making them cost-accessible to all. 

Something I hadn't thought about until this author mentioned it:  the difficulty of writing serialized novels - authors generally have the freedom to go back and revise, or to write sections entirely out of sequence.  Dickens, typically needing cash, was on deadline - he simply had to make the books work from installment to installment.  Even when not necessarily knowing exactly where the book was headed, how critical or public reaction to an installment might suggest changes, etc.

I didn't know that he was under cash pressure even after starting to make very good money as an author.  Grew up poor; father in debtor's prison at some point; never really accumulated capital; ended up supporting his father, his brothers, his sons, his ex-wife, his girlfriend and some of her family, etc.  He had to work very hard, right up until time of his death.

Pickwick Papers made his reputation.

Later in life, he did amazing readings from his works - scripted to his strengths, not taken directly from the books - a great way to make money, huge audiences, tremendous responses.

Met royalty, presidents, top literary folks from his era.

I (and others who know more about this than me) think that many (some?) of his characters and story lines today come across as "over the top".  Certainly hasn't impeded popularity.

The Life of Samuel Johnson (James Boswell, 1791)

It doesn't require much reading to run into references to Dr. Johnson and his biographer, Boswell.  In fact, Boswell became synonymous with biography in a way - you see references that so-and-so needed a Boswell.  This, even though how many people these days know anything about Dr. Johnson himself?  I certainly didn't.

There's a lot going on in this work, and I have trouble sorting it out.  It also took a long time to work through.  1006 dense pages; no breaks even for chapter headings; I think it was worth the time.

Johnson basically was of humble birth and had no money or standing.  I think you could describe him as a big lug.  Awkward physically.  He read a ton as a youth (and thereafter) and had a phenomenal memory; also must have had a super-sharp intellect in that he could carry around everything he knew, sort it effectively, and pull it up on command.  This was combined with the skill that distinguished him above all else:  the ability to communicate in a pithy, forceful, memorable style (whether in writing or in conversation).  He came to London as a poor man and wrote for money - short works.  Eventually was approved to write a famous Dictionary of the English language - and this was where he made his mark.  This led to fame, and a government pension of 300 pounds per year - not much money at all, but enough for Johnson.

Boswell was a Scottish gentleman who met Johnson when Johnson already was in his early 50s; at least 20 years younger than Johnson; seemed to hero-worship the now-famous Johnson; spent a great deal of time in London with Johnson; occasionally traveled with him; took up the idea of being his biographer and started to record conversational nuggets on an amazingly regular basis. 

Johnson's fame and his style made him a target.  He could be brusque and rude; he didn't know how to participate in a conversation involving more than one other person without turning it into some kind of competition.  He would pretty much take the opposite side of any argument just for the sake of the competition. 

It's fascinating to hear the discussions - by this leading mid and late-18th century figure - of the leading lights of those days.  The folks in London were discussing and/or interacting with Kant, Rousseau, Hume (the infidel), Frederick the Great; Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, King George III; he had a tiff with Voltaire; the lists goes on and on.  Johnson was a stickler for tradition - the monarchy, Tory party, and high-church Anglicanism; he thought the American rebels were in the wrong.  They discussed so many of the same issues that remain in the news to this day.  It's a great window into the 18th-century discussions.

I don't know where else such a window exists.  Boswell followed Johnson around in real time for decades - most biographers have to assemble information after the fact.  (Though they didn't spend all that much time together - gaps are filled in, somewhat, via copies of correspondence or other sources.)

And would Johnson have remained famous with Boswell?  Probably not.  His short works, his Dictionary, above all his sayings - these are very, very fine things.  But not enough to place him among the literary greats (as I understand it).

Books with Johnson sayings still sell well to this day - one can see why so many tried to imitate his style - incredibly effective language.

One quote that has stood up well to this day:  "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Reading Chekhov: A Critical Journey (Janet Malcolm, 2001)

I had seen a couple favorable reviews on this book, plus I much enjoyed this compilation of Chekhov short stories (though the book actually included actually fairly long stories by what I now understand to be his standard).

I found this interesting, but not terribly so.  Probably because I haven't read enough Chekhov.  Part of it was the style - the author was traveling around Russia looking at Chekhov sites, and linking occurrences to stories or themes in Chekhov stories - some of this seemed strained.

Of interest to me:

1.  Chekhov really had Tolstoy - older, more established, and so definite about so many things (if unreasonably so) - up on a pedestal.

2.  Chekhov as a master of distilling the story to the bare minimum.  Quite modern - didn't like neat resolutions.

3.  Chekhov as closely tied to his family; very loyal; grew up very quickly and pretty much led the family - the father was a religious fanatic of some sort.  Chekhov became a doctor but didn't practice a lot; did some work with indigent.

4.  The famous trip to Sakhalin - penal colony - and a report on the conditions there.  I hadn't realized he traveled cross-country (assumed it was via boat both directions, not just on the return) - and this was before the Trans-Siberian Railroad existed - wow.

5.  I liked the discussion of "The Steppe" - which was my favorite among the stories in the compilation I read.

6.  Chekhov not a fan of Dostoevsky - didn't like the "psychological" stuff.  But similar to Harold Bloom, this author traces Dostoevsky influences in Chekhov stories.

I definitely will read more of Chekhov's stories.

Plutarch's Lives, Vol. 1 (early second century A.D.) (The Dryden Translation, 1683)

This has to be the very definition of a "classic."  Written in the 100s A.D.; read by everyone claiming to be educated over the centuries (OK, in the west, that is); on every bookshelf where folks could afford to own books; this edition happens to be the Dryden translation (though updated) that introduced Plutarch to English speakers in the late 17th century.  750 pages, so it took awhile to work through at the gym.  Well worth it.

I think it is neat that someone like Montaigne was so fond of the book (in late 16th century).  Not to mention the fictional Cecile in one of my favorite books; her father had Cecile read to him from Plutarch in the evenings (and the Quebec nuns thought this might why be she didn't turn out to be quite as pious as they had hoped) (early 20th century book set in late 17th/early 18th century). Shakespeare used it for "Julius Caesar" and "Antony and Cleopatra".  Etc. - the only source for much information from classical times (if not always consistent and accurate).

Plutarch's three-part method for the "parallel lives" is famous - he selects a leading figure from Greece and provides a short biography, then a biography of a leading figure from Rome, then a brief comparison of the two. (Even if they don't always match up all that closely.)

A few thoughts:

1.  He is interested in the character of the "biographees" - how this helped or hurt them in the long run; hoping this would be didactic for the reader.  Then there is a famous passage in the midst where he allows that the extended consideration of character issues as he writes the biographies is at least as value to him personally as to his intended audience.

2.  The traditional Roman virtues were breaking down, but he does continue to emphasize how successful leaders were circumspect in offering the appropriate sacrifices, obtaining (and following) interpretation of dreams, omens, etc.; augury is presented as incredibly important.

3.  The virtues of thrift; the many leaders that succumbed to avarice; how even virtuous leaders often were brought low, often by schemers back home while the leader was off on some successful military campaign.

4.  Biographies go all the way back to Theseus and Romulus and other figures from legendary times.

5.  I'm always struck by the sophisticated analyses of human nature and political structures in these classical writers - our politicians, not to mention the electorate, could get some useful perspective from reading these things.  In the biography of Lycurgus, for example, a great discussion of monarchy, dangers of popular opinion, strength/weakness of a senate-like body.  As in this book in the context of Athens - much discussion of populism, masses against elites, voting oneselves handouts (with consequences), debt relief (where interest exceeded principal owed).

6.  All the famous characters from antiquity are here, too many to list.  Solon.  Themistocles (ships v. Persia, later banished), Alcibiades, Pericles, Marcus Cato (self-control, austerity).  The story (in the biography of Flaminus) of the shout of joy (by Greeks upon restoration of their city) that caused crows to fall down dead, with Plutarch's speculations on the "why."  Pyrrhus ("one other such [victory] would utterly undo him").  Cimon.  Lucullus fighting all over Asia (and his soldiers tiring as Alexander's had).

Shouldn't be missed.  More readable than expected.  Even the dated translation works well.

Mary Colter - Architect of the Southwest (Arnold Berke, 2002)

PJ bought this for me as a gift upon our departure from the Colter-designed La Posada during our recent (and most enjoyable) visit.  I was interested in the book primarily due to Colter's connection to La Posada and to various buildings (including Phantom Ranch) in the Grand Canyon area.  I will have a better appreciation for these upon future visits, which we surely shall make.

The book gave me lots of ideas, including:

1.  Colter grew up in Minnesota.  A chance gift stirred her interest in the Southwest.

2.    She began as a designer, and moved into architecture.  Not widely recognized during her career; the author suggests, plausibly, that this was attributable in part to her being a woman, and being perceived as a designer.

3.  It's fascinating to think that the Fred Harvey Company working in tandem with the Santa Fe Railway - both of which Colter worked for over the course of so many years - pretty much invented the American Southwest as it came to be known to decades worth of tourists, with impressions persisting to this day.  Very few roads, very limited access, very limited knowledge.  These companies marketed very effectively.  They essentially invented the widespread demand for Navajo rugs, Native American jewelry, etc.  I don't know details, but this doesn't strike me as a bad thing.  Even if some of the techniques employed then would be considered politically incorrect today.

4.  Colter didn't work on El Tovar - it was already in place.  She did work on Bright Angel Lodge, Phantom Ranch, Hermit's Rest (which we've not visited), the "watchtower" at the east rim (which we've been around but not in), and plenty of other structures in the Grand Canyon area.  She had a great knack for incorporating local styles, placing buildings into a natural setting, while meeting the marketing goals that drove the entire engine.



5.  One of her first assignments at Grand Canyon was the gift shop ("Hopi House") that sits just opposite El Tovar.  I've been in there a number of times but now need to revisit with a different eye.

6.  The book includes a long description and many great photos of La Posada in Winslow.  PJ and I just loved the place, and the descriptions help explain why.  Colter lived through the decommissioning of the building (and remarked about how sometimes folks "live too long"), but didn't see its renaissance.

7.  Interesting discussion of the rise and fall of passenger railroads.  People preferred cars.  Colter was around for the glory days - various lovely train stations roughly along the Route 66 corridor - and  the quick decline.

I liked this book a lot, and definitely will consult it as we make visits to the various Colter buildings in future years.

Rudyard Kipling, A Life (Harry Ricketts, 1999)

This was interesting, a quick read. I didn't really know much about where Kipling fit into things, so it was helpful.

Basically he spent a good chunk of his early life being exposed to India because of his father's job there (along with interludes being educated in England, including an unpleasant stay with what amounted to a foster family). Obvious talent for writing. Took a job with a Brit newspaper in India, and eventually put together a number of stories that brought him celebrity at a young age. Lived in the U.S. for a few years, then back to England.

He never produced a great full-length novel, and apparently it was quite the fashion for the intelligentsia to criticize him after the initial acclaim wore off. Yet he remained very popular with the reading public (which probably explains some of the criticism). Sounds like some of his work was quite good, including a piece that Forster must have had in mind when he wrote A Passage to India.

He became the poet for the (declining) British Empire, though I don't know that he planned for this. His background spanning India and England gave him the right perspective, and he was a true believer. Including the (now in)famous phrase about the "white man's burden." Big admirer of Cecil Rhodes.

His son was killed in WWI, and Kipling devoted lots of energy in support of the war effort. In later years he offered lots of political commentary - much of which sounded quite current as he opposed expansion of the welfare state, emphasized individual reliance, etc. The kind of talk that always decreases one's popularity among the greater portion of the arts community.

So this was an interesting look from a different perspective about the Empire, the Boer War, colonialism, WWI, etc.

I like stories involving intersection between the cultures, and think I shall read some of his works.

Robert Frost - A Life (Jay Parini, 1999)

I continue reading biographies of artists in the hope that it might give some glimpse of the "creative process." I don't know that that's happening at all, but I am enjoying the bios (Goethe, Lizst, Tolstoy, Goya, now Frost).

Didn't know Frost actually grew up in San Francisco - he didn't get to New England until age 11 or 12 or whatever. The author comments that this might have helped him become such an effective observer of New England - not having grown up there, he didn't take for granted the look of the place, its folkways, its speech patterns, etc.

Didn't know that he lived in England for a few years, and that that interlude was a catalyst for putting his poetry into publication and bringing him into the public eye. Came back just as WWI was breaking out.

Interesting stories of his parents - the father was a hard living newpaperman, the mother a saintly figure. Frost was quite interested in Darwin's work, and loved being out in nature on long hikes, "botanizing."

Frost learned by reading; interesting that he was such a fan of Prescott's work on the conquest of Mexico - this author says that he wrote his first submitted poem on this. He didn't much care about being in college. He actually did try farming in a number of settings, after a fashion. Dramatic love affair with his bride-to-be; children in a what seemed to be a pretty undisciplined household; mental illness with children.

Also spent many years teaching, and then many years as a famed public figure doing minimal work for excellent pay at various colleges. Also was perhaps the first poet to do widely attended public lectures. It seems that he developed a certain on-stage persona, and really enjoyed playing it.

Also interesting - and seems contemporary - he was out of step with many of the university types because of his opposition to the New Deal - expressed belief instead in limited government and individual freedom and responsibility. This was particularly interesting to me because of the current intensified debate along these lines.

And then the poetry - no need to list favorites here, it would be long. Just re-read "Death of the Hired Man" the other day. I just really don't get how poets do it, but wish I had a better feel for this. Basically incredible to think about how much is packed into each line, once somebody breaks it down for me.

Evening in the Palace of Reason (James Gaines, 2005)

This book was based on an interesting conceit - a visit by Bach to Frederick the Great during which Frederick posed a musical challenge - I didn't comprehend the intricacy, but it involved the use of canons and/or fugues. Frederick apparently was pretty sophisticated musically (though his employee - Carl Bach! - is thought to have come up with the challenge.) Anyway, Bach came up with what is now referred to as "The Musical Offering." I have listened to that CD quite often over the years but hadn't known about its background.

The book actually doesn't spend all that much time on this specific episode, which in the end didn't seem all that important to either party. But the episode did present an opportunity to compare and contrast the ages represented by Bach (old school Lutheran, belief in original sin etc.) and Frederick (Enlightenment, rationality, belief in perfectibility of man).

The author gave a brief biography of each protagonist; he concludes Bach was a bit of an individualist within the Lutheran tradition and in fact a precursor to the Romantics.

It was interesting to think of a person like Bach in those days -a village cantor or organist because there wasn't much else of a market for musicianship - recognized for talent, but in a role where followed orders and did music as a craft; his music depicted theological "truths." The notion of an independent artist expressing his or her own vision just didn't exist in that part of the world at that time. Yet Bach did some pretty independent composing, ergo the esteem in which the later romantics held him.

The portrayal of Frederick wasn't very flattering - the author spends a great deal of time explaining how his father was controlling and abusive, and how this appeared to affect Frederick's relationships ever after. He was intent on expanding Prussia, ended up with lots of wars. Apparently relatively progressive as a ruler; also somewhat forgotten until Hitler came along. Not sure why Hitler picked up on Frederick the Great, maybe he was as good a symbol as any that were available; I read that Hitler made the formal declaration of the Third Reich at Frederick's tomb. (I think the "first reich" was the Holy Roman Empire, and the "second reich" was the German empire as it existed after the unification by Bismark in 1870 through the end of WWI.)

The author gave a lot of details about canons and fugues, how they are constructed etc. I'm confident I still don't understand this, and could never pick out the elements - though I certainly like the sound of Bach's work of this nature, or at least the little to which I've been exposed.

Also, the author exults over Bach's B minor Mass and the Passion According to St. Matthew - I would agree that both are great listening. It's also interesting how Mendelssohn did a version of the B minor Mass that was catalytic in bringing Bach to public attention - after 100+ years of Bach having been largely forgotten.