The Emperor of Lies (Steve Sem-Sandberg, 2011)

This book is very unusual, and (I think) very valuable.  Over the course of 600+ pages, it made me really uncomfortable quite regularly.  Presumably that was one of the author's goals.

As to Holocaust literature - I'm slowly getting a little more perspective on this.  Reading this book helped me understand that for many years following WWII, the focus was kept only on the nations (as a whole) that were victimized by the Nazis - very little attention was allowed to the idea that the Jews were a special target - instead, they were lumped in with the rest of the population.  This changed in the 1960s - one catalyst was the 1962 Eichmann trial - one of the first times the special (mis)treatment of Jews was highlighted.  Over time following this, things changed.  The camps became memorials, the politicians starting apologizing, movies were made, books were written, museums pop up all over the world.  One profane comic in 2012 is saying, among other things, that "the Holocaust of course must not be forgotten, but that doesn't mean we are required to talk about it 24/7."

So is there too much attention, and am I personally reading too much about this?  Who knows - the circumstances are way beyond compelling.  That makes for great story lines, but also makes them perhaps less applicable to the more normal circumstances we customarily face.

This book is a novel, but based on an unusual place - the Polish city of Lodz (just a bit southwest of Warsaw) - with what became the second-largest ghetto.  Something unusual is that the Jewish administration maintained The Ghetto Chronicle - and may other written records survived.  So the novelist can piece together a story of life in Lodz during the many years (February 1940 through the end of 1944) under Nazi domination.  And include characters as to whom there was a wealth of information.

View Larger Map
And it's thoroughly, thoroughly depressing.  The "Emperor" is a Jewish businessman who became an authoritarian figure over the ghetto (though always under the thumb of the local Nazi administration).  The "Emperor" believed that cooperating with the Nazis was the key to survival - primarily through everyone working hard at factories.  He talked like a politician.   Collaboration.  Jewish-operated factories making parts for the Luftwaffe, uniforms for the Wehrmacht.  How strange it must have been!  But survival comes first.

Power corrupted even in this odd little world - the Emperor could indulge his unsavory habits and patronize his family, friends and favorites; payola and bribes for many in power while incredible tales of heroism by others.  The litany of awful decisions in ghetto circumstances - how much food, who gets deported, what to do with those that can't work.  Struggling to keep jobs and avoid getting transported, while always cold and hungry.  Clandestine radios.  Terrible scenes where families are split up.  Awful results for those transported out of the ghetto (which even the ghetto dwellers couldn't deny after awhile.)

The cover photo is great - the Nazis commissioned some photographer to take photos in the Lodz ghetto, equipped him with color film.  I need to track down more of the photos, I'm hoping they're sitting online somewhere.

Not an easy read.  Just amazing.

The Leopard (Giuseppe di Lampedusa, 1958 (posthumous))

I much liked this, though I'm still considering why it worked so well.  It's very unusual.

For one thing, the author is remarkably economical with words; the book is relatively short; at one level the author can't create the kind of connection with the characters that a Tolstoy can accomplish over many more pages; yet he pulls it off, and the book really works.  The author truly is quite marvelous using words, it is a delight to read the book just on that level.

Perhaps my sense of connection to this work is related to the way the story line fits with other things I've been reading (though I have no doubt the story line also would stand perfectly well on its own).  The story primarily is set in 1860s Sicily - a noble family experiences changes wrought by the Risorgimento (crystallizing around Garibaldi's arrival in Sicily).  The Prince (Fabrizio) of the House of Salina (symbol = the leopard) - approaching 50 years in age when we meet him - is the central character.  His nephew (Tancredi) appears to be nearing marriage with his daughter (Concetta) (which I guess was ok at the time), then meets the uncommonly beautiful commoner, Angelica (daughter of the nouveau riche Mayor).  Father Pirrone - confessor to the Salinas - makes a trip back to his home village and experiences a marriage setup similar to that affecting the house of Salina.  Interesting speeches by the Prince about the character of the Sicilians.  Death of the Prince - and the passing of an era in many senses.  Concetta and her sisters with the relics.  Sicily itself - the importance of geography in shaping the people.

Perhaps above all - a really effective way of communicating the oft-neglected but fundamental idea:  the transience of so many things on which we burn so much energy.

I'm constantly struck with how reading is self-reinforcing - each book makes other books far more interesting.  For example: This book was helpful in understanding The Leopard - good discussions of the gulf that still exists between northern and southern Italy (certainly including Sicily).  This book was helpful regarding the Risorgimento and the various revolutionary movements following the French Revolution (including 1848 events); with this book, it communicated the importance and incredible popularity of Garibaldi (if he was politically marginalized).  This book was interesting in terms of 19th century Italian politics - how the French and Austrians intrigued in the country (and not just in the north).  This and this drive home the Prince's comments about the history of Sicilian invaders, going back to classical times.

Well-known quote:  "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change." (spoken by Tancredi).

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.

Reappraisals - Reflections on the Forgotten Twentieth Century (Tony Judt, 2008)

I signed out this book solely because I thought Judt did such a fantastic job with Postwar, summarized here.  This isn't a book per se, it's a compilation of various articles that he published in various periodicals between 1996 and 2004.  Like Postwar, this is full of interesting ideas - and focused on recent history, an area I have read so little about (unfortunately).

Highly recommended. 

(It would be interesting to see what Judt has to say in 2012 as the European welfare state breaks down - at the time these pieces were written, he was pretty adamant about the success of the European project, how it is a superior model to the U.S., etc.)

Things I noted:

1.  He thinks America is the only advanced country that glorifies the military; notes how we tend to put down the Euros for their de-emphasis on military.  Points out that the contrasting attitudes probably are based mostly on recent histories - Europe constantly devastated, America triumphant and un-invaded.

2.  Why Marxism was attractive to so many, and why it wasn't irrational for so many to find it attractive.  But he makes no apologies for those who hung on after its shortcomings were obvious (Sartre, for example).   How intellectuals tried to prop up Marx by going to his early writings - Louis Althusser - who wrote a book I had in a 1970s "Marxism" class about young Lenin - Judt explains why this was pretty ridiculous.

3.  Why it is a mistake to view "terrorism" as a post-Cold War phenomenon; the huge policy error of converting this to a state of world-wide war with radical Islam.

4.  He profiles various writers/intellectuals of the 20th century - most of who were just names to me until going through these articles.  (OK, they're not much more than just names at this point to me anyway.)  Hannah Arendt.  Albert Camus.

5.  As in Postwar, he goes through analyses of various countries.  France - preserving its history.  Romania - Bucharest closer to Istanbul than any central European capital. 

6. Interesting discussion of how the six-day war (1967) backfired on Israel in so many ways.  A small underdog with European Jews and a European mindset (kibbutzim); now a military power with a whole new set of issues.

7.  Interesting commentary on Nixon and Kissinger - how the two of them went off on their own, excluded State, etc.   

The Brothers Karamazov (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1880)

Another deservedly famous Dostoyevsky novel.  (Though I think I liked both Crime and Punishment and The Idiot even better.)  I had read this about 15 years ago but wanted to come back to it after having had the opportunity to do more reading in the meantime.  Didn't remember much except the initial scene when papa Karamazov buffoons it up at the monastery visiting the elder (Zosima).

So many strong characters:

- Fyodor - lecherous father
- Alyosha - the hero - younger brother - reminds me of the Idiot (Myshkin) in some ways.
- Dmitri - older brother - passionate; generous (always with money received from others)
- Ivan - middle brother - intellectual (rationalist, nihilist); anxious to rise above Christian, run-of-the-mill values
- Smerdyakov - Fyodor's illegitimate son (it is rumored); thinks he has a special relationship with Ivan; too clever by half
- Katya - bowed down to Dmitri
- Grushenka - Dmitri (and Fyodor) fall for her "curves", Dmitri ending up very much in love
- Madame Kohvalov (talky) and daughter (Lise - nice scene professing her soon-to-be-withdrawn betothal with Alyosha)
- Ilusha and his father (wisp of tow); Krossotkin
- Father Zosima

The "Grand Inquisitor" - Ivan's poem about Jesus returning to earth and being imprisoned by a Spanish Jesuit - this is often presented as a separate work. 

Toward the end of the novel, there is a lengthy portrayal of Dmitri's trial.  I didn't think it added much to the story. 

Baseball in the Garden of Eden - The Secret History of the Early Game (John Thorn, 2011)

Simon and Schuster book; gift from CCG (thanks!)  I hadn't even been aware that the book existed.

It was surprisingly interesting - an entirely new take, at least for me, on the origins of baseball.  I had last paid attention to this topic probably 40 years, give or take - when MLB observed the 100th anniversary of the Cincinnati professional team in 1969.  So I was familiar with the debunked status of Abner Doubleday, but otherwise had heard mostly about Alexander Cartwright (who also didn't "invent" anything, though at least was involved in rules development and the like).  This author goes into much more background.

Thoughts:

1.  I like how the author starts the book with the story of a commission that was charged with determining the origins of the game; its report, issued in 1910, identified Doubleday on flimsy evidence.  The author then pushes back in time to show other sources of the game, plus devotes time to explaining why Doubleday might have been entertained as a putative parent of the game.

2.  Interesting stories about "town ball," "old cat," base ball", etc.  Newspaper clippings or town records reference this going back to the 18th century (usually in reference to banning play near windows, or somesuch).  The "New York" version coming to the fore, the "Massachusetts" version fading.

3.  If one tries to think back to the origins of the game - quite an amazing chain of events - somehow it developed that people were willing to pay money to watch a game that was barely known.  The Civil War helped spread it.

4.  I liked how he links the development of formalized rules, statistics, etc. to gambling.  How the game was shaped in so many ways by those who would use it to make money (like there was anything wrong with that).  How the game sought to sell itself as a pure, amateur endeavor - similar to college sports, and just as big a joke.  19th century "amateur" players were busted for holding sinecures with boosters or owners - just last week one of the football factories was busted for the same practice.

5.  Lengthy, interesting discussions of the origins of the reserve clause, the notion of free agency, salary caps, designated hitters, prohibition of blacks, formation of rival leagues, etc.  Good run-up to how the American League finally survived to join the National League. 

6.  Getting back to the Doubleday fabrication - there is an odd connection to the Theosophist group - some weird cult-like organization that had some following in the 19th century and into the 20th.  Albert Spaulding was involved, as were his second wife and other figures tied to the sport.  Civil War figure Doubleday also was heavily involved with the Theosophists.  After surviving some rough patches, the powers that be in charge of baseball in 1910 were highly interested in proving an all-American, high-integrity, glossy paternity for the game.  Doubleday was a great candidate (plus attractive to the Theosophists).  The case for his paternity rested almost entirely on the recollections of an old man who was five years old when Doubleday invented the game in 1939 (i.e., the evidence was a joke).

The Anatomy of Influence - Literature as a Way of Life (Harold Bloom, 2011)

This is a very recent book that has received great reviews and is appearing on a number of "best of" lists for 2011.  The author has taught at Yale for decades while also being a very well-known (though not to me) literary critic. 

I found the book very interesting - but I still don't know why, because I simply don't understand what he's talking about most of the time.  This is an entirely different level of engagement with literature.

The basic premise here - and in other of his works - is the role of "influence" - how writers were influenced by others.  But I can't follow the influence threads very well; perhaps because much of the book is focused on poetry, which is a foreign land to me.

And he keeps talking about things that are inscrutable to me (and, I suspect, unhelpful):  gnosticism, Lucretianism, etc.

Something I liked: he's 80 and recently experienced very poor health - this comes through - he suspects this is his last hurrah, probably isn't filtering opinions, etc.

Something that was clear to me:  I need to take another run at Shakespeare.  This author just loves Shakespeare - he ranks him way above all others (giving Walt Whitman somewhat similar acclaim in the American market).  And he quotes plenty of others who share his views of Shakespeare.  Emerson said, "He [Shakespeare] wrote the text of modern life."  Bloom:  "I can think of no one except Shakespeare and Montaigne who has such wisdom beyond tendentiousness." Bloom:  "The miracle of Shakespearean representation is its contaminating power:  one hundred major characters and a thousand adjacent figures throng our streets and sidle into our lives." Now that's influence.

Bloom:  "I keep returning to Shakespeare in the chapters that follow not because I am a Bardolator (I am) but because he is inescapable for all who came after, in all nations of the world except France, where Stendhal and Victor Hugo went against their country's neoclassical rejection of what was regarded as dramatic 'barbarism'."  That quote sounds cool but I need to think more about what the last part means.

Bloom thinks "Nostromo" is Conrad's best book:  good choice.  He admires Proust, Milton, quite a few others.

So I will start spending some time with Shakespeare.  Not sure I care about exploring Whitman's stuff, maybe later. 

And maybe I'll read this book again in a decade or so and see if it makes some sense to me.

Railroaded - The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America (Richard White, 2011)

Brand new book, very well reviewed.  Usually I'm very careful about book selection - far too many from which to choose, time is precious, and I feel guilty if I don't finish a book once I start it (which is odd when you think about it).

Made a selection mistake this time, so this was the unusual case where I happily dumped the book (after 150 or so pages in this instance).  The title - "Railroaded" - perhaps should have tipped me off.  The author came across like a New York Times editorial page contributor - he seemed unduly proud of having discovered the thoroughly unoriginal notion that government officials and large-scale businesses look out for each other (with demonization focused on the business side, of course).

I don't get tired of reading about the manner in which railroads transformed societies worldwide, and I was hoping the book would be interesting in that direction.

But no.

Faust, Part I (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, preliminary 1806, revised 1828)

Goethe's version (Penguin paperback here) of a well-known tale with centuries-old roots.  It's interesting that Goethe (bio here) was struggling with the story for much of his adult life - Part II wasn't even published until after his death.  Part I came out in preliminary form in 1806 and was issued in revised form in 1828.  So "different" Goethes were working on different parts of the work.

I ordinarily don't read plays, and have trouble getting through them.  Should work on that.  But this one was short.  Faust is frustrated with his inability to possess knowledge; cuts the famous bargain with the devil (signed with a drop of blood, per picture); starts hanging out with Mephistopheles and having various adventures (including the scene where wine is tapped from the barroom table); corrupts Gretchen; kills Gretchen's brother; attends the witch-gathering; seeks to spring Gretchen; etc.

The devil seems to be the most "human" character in these types of stories, which I find interesting.

Numerous stage versions, numerous adaptations.  I think the critics generally considered this a great work though flawed in construction, I read that Part II doesn't flow well.

Comedy in a Minor Key (Hans Keilson, 1947)

English translation only in 2010, so this is but recently available.  And well reviewed.

Simple, short story ("novella") about a married Dutch couple (Wim and Marie) who agreed to hide a Jew (known as Nico) in an upstairs bedroom.  They don't really run into serious problems while doing so, though the author does a great job helping us understand what all that might have felt like - the effect on the hidden; the effect on the hiders; the tension associated with little things like dealing with the cleaning lady, the milkman, visiting relatives; listening to the bombers fly overhead on their way from bases in Britain to targets inside Germany; dealing with Netherlands policemen who can be more or less helpful to the Nazi occupiers; etc.  Wim and Marie were simple, kind, people.

Then there is a problem - Nico dies (he wasn't in great health and caught pneumonia).  Disposing of the body led to a situation that involved a complete shift of perspective for Wim and Marie, one that gave them a glimpse into what had become Nico's world.

Which I think is very helpful to think about.  (This type of shift probably could happen, beneficially, more in my day-to-day life if I keep my eyes open.)

This book offers another instructive perspective on what I would tend to characterize as "peripheral" players in WWII-era Europe.  But really, what's peripheral about these characters??

Things like this must have happened in Luxembourg?

1945 - The War That Never Ended (Gregor Dallas, 2005)

This was a very helpful companion to Tony Judt's work; both focus on the end of WWII in Europe with an eye toward political repercussions in the immediate postwar era (though Judt's book then discussed developments all the way up to 2005).  These books are useful to me because I don't know much about this topic - have read lots about the war and the battles, while these end-game maneuverings had far more significant long-term consequences.

Retouched?  Woman looks odd.

One essential message is that postwar Europe - notwithstanding rhetoric - was defined by movements of the armies and, in particular, where the armies stopped.  As Judt noted - wider gaps in the Balkans, meaning freer play among local warring groups which has continued pretty much until this day.

Thoughts:

1.  More discussion than I've read anywhere else about France - the collaborators, the way the French themselves mistreated the Jews amongst them (not that this distinguished the French from other countries), the Communists jockeying for position (not that this distinguished the French from other countries), de Gaulle, etc.

2.  More discussion than I've read anywhere else about Poland - just awful.  In general, it was a very bad thing to be anywhere near the movements of the German and Russian armies.  Poor Poland - the treatment of its large Jewish population, the "uprising", the destruction of Warsaw, the irrelevance of the government-in-exile.

3.  As Judt discussed well - the weird way that time almost stopped for countries trapped behind what came to be known as the Iron Curtain.  These were in central Europe historically - now it became known as "Eastern Europe" - isolated, different.

4.  The wide swath of Western apologists for Communism.  Yes, Russia was a key ally; and socialism/Communism features awesome-sounding slogans and hadn't yet been thoroughly discredited - but still, it took some willful blindness to overlook what had been happening in Russia.  Lots of folks were believers, or at least found it convenient to believe.  Folks like Orwell saw through it (which made this all the more interesting), as did Churchill; most did not. 

5.  The Nazis were amazing killers - the ramp-up in Jew-killing was impressive - but they were amateurs compared to Stalin.  This book discusses the use of slave labor, prison camps, etc.

6.  Beveridge and the birth of the welfare state in Britain - promises that can't be kept, but they certainly sound appealing.

7.  How the back-and-forth of the armies drove "resistance" movements or "partisans" - or "traitors" for that matter.  As German army swept eastward, many defecting Russians; some partisan Russians pressured Germans from behind.  As Russian army pushed westward - process reversed itself.   

Lots to think about.  A minor criticism - I didn't find the book particularly well organized - it jumps around.  That being said, I'm not sure how one could better organize all these threads.  It's a complex set of circumstances that defies simplistic organization.

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.

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.

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.

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.