1493 - Uncovering the New World Columbus Created (Charles C. Mann, 2011)

This book is a follow-on to the author's highly successful book from a couple years - titled "1491" (discussed here).  "1491" had a bunch of interesting ideas, many admittedly speculative, about life in North America prior to the arrival of Columbus.

"1493" is about what is loosely defined as the "Columbian Exchange" - the massive exchange of plants, animals, diseases, humans, culture, ideas between the eastern and western hemispheres that followed in Columbus's wake.   The book isn't as good as "1491" - scattershot - there are so many aspects to the Exchange that it's impossible for an author to try to cover it so broadly.  But I still think this is worth reading (quickly). 

Some things I was interested in:

1.  The power of tobacco.  Widespread use, addiction.  Interesting how governments wanted to ban it but couldn't as a practical matter, plus it was useful to tax it heavily.  Sounds familiar.

2.  I like the stories about how the transfer of potatoes out of the Andes led to much change in Europe and elsewhere.  Turns out that people can live just fine on no food other than potatoes and milk.  Potatoes stored well.  They grew underground - safer.  They were ready for harvest earlier than traditional grains (starving time for Europeans typically was the weeks/months before harvest - now you could eat potatoes during this gap).  They dramatically out-produced traditional grains (wheat, barley, oats) - by at least a factor of four.  This supported population increase, and pretty much ended famine in Europe.  Countries like Ireland became heavily dependent on potatoes; Ireland had a massive population boom before the famous 19th-century blight episode.  Ireland still is the only country in Europe with a lower population now than in 19th century.

3.  Maize.  Tomatoes.  Peppers.  Made in Americas, associated with cuisine from other parts of the world. 

4.  China traded silk and porcelain for Spanish silver.  Took in Western hemisphere plants.  Big changes.

5.  Interesting discussion of how the races intermingled in the early days pretty freely; then as the years went by, things became stricter.  In the early days, the native Americans were considered innocent and redeemable - unlike Jews and Muslims, their religious beliefs were excused as a product of ignorance rather than knowing rejection of the true faith.  As time passed and acceptance of the true faith was increasingly sketchy, the somewhat-tolerant view changed.  Gotta preserve status somehow.  Unlike the English in North America - the Spanish and Portuguese seldom brought along women - so mixing with the locals was widespread.  Mulatto (Afro-European); mestizo (Indo-European); zambo (Afro-Indian); Castizo (Spaniard-mestizo); morisco (Spanish-mulatto); etc.  Bizarre "casta" paintings that provide instruction about cultural mixes. 

6.  Barbers in Mexico City complaining about cheap Chinese immigrant competition.  A common complaint in those days.

7.  That the numbers of blacks and Asians coming into the Americas was massively higher than the number of whites.  Many escaped or otherwise established a way of life independent of the white power structure.  But pretty much out of sight.  Massive European immigration in 19th century increased the number of whites to the level we're familiar with now.

God's Crucible - Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215 (David Levering Lewis, 2008)

For some reason I found this book incredibly helpful in lining up various threads running through this historical period.  It's probably been helpful to go through books like this, this, this, this, this, etc. - perhaps that gave enough background where, via this one, some pieces finally start to fit together and make some sense.

I don't know that the author had a defining theme here, notwithstanding the title.  Mostly, it's a highly readable, highly useful guide to major currents between 570 and 1215 in Rome, Persia, Arabia, (what became) Europe, with a particular focus on Spain.

Thoughts:

1.  Something like the focus on the Western Front in the two world wars - I tend to think that the Roman Empire primarily was taken down via pressure coming from Western Europe - those fierce Germanic tribes, etc.  This author points out that the real manpower was burned in the East - a long series of struggles between Rome and Persia - leaving both exhausted and weak just when Islam began.

2.  Useful discussion of the beginnings of Islam.  Seems reasonable to conclude that it thrived via conquest in a generally hostile environment and that, as with most religions, its tenets evolved as needed in the circumstances.  Violent conquest led to taxes and wealth to keep the machine going.  The territorial achievements were simply amazing.  I don't know why apologists pull quotes out of Koran and say Islam is purely a "religion of peace" - all religions, not to mention 20th-century communist country constitutions, include those kinds of quotes.  The history for all these institutions is what it is.

3.  Islamic conquerors let folks in the conquered territories practice their religions, somewhat.  But they (unlike Muslims) had to pay lots of taxes.  Which encouraged conversions.  Still, it was a more effective practice than feudalism - which didn't really involve a money economy - the king gave land grants to supportive nobles, but this was a finite supply and tended to set up the noble for future conflict.

4.   Some key dates are set forth in this review.  Reiterates early capital at Damascus, then the move to Baghdad around 762.   

5.  Spain was unique.  Visigoth Arians convert to orthodox Christianity; small part of the population, but controlling - and fired with the zeal of converts.  Mistreat Jewish population.  When the Islamic wave finally gets through the Berbers and is ready to approach the Iberian peninsula - in 711 - Jews are helpful to them. Arabs needed Berbers to take Spain; they made fast progress through a divided country. 

6.  Good discussion of Clovis (511) and Merovingians; the palace mayors that became the Carolingians.  This actually was pretty amazing - no other coherent order elsewhere in what later became Europe.  Defeat of the Arabs/Berbers at Tours in 732 (by Charles Martel, his family not yet royal); not seen as definitive halt of Islamic territorial advance at the time, but divisions among the Arabs/Berbers prevented the next invasions until after Charlemagne et al got their act together and were able to hold the line.

7.  How the western papacy - and Rome itself - hung by a thread.  All the power of old Rome had shifted east to Constantinople.  Rome sacked, population tiny.  Pope powerless other than a mostly-ignored bully pulpit.  Subordinate to Constantinople.  This could easily have turned out very differently than it did.  Carolingians weren't legitimate successors to Merovingians and decided to support the pope in exchange for the pope legitimatizing them.  Turned into a highly significant partnership.  Charlemagne gave the popes the Papal States that were a key dividing factor in Italy for the next thousand years.

8.  Islamic rulers of Spain generally tolerant - but in significant part because they didn't have the numbers to do anything else in the early going when the patterns were set.  Always a tiny minority.

9.  Sophistication in Spain compared to backwardness in Europe.  Charlemagne a truly remarkable figure - both in battle and in imposing Christianity, promoting education etc.  (Even if it barely survived him.)

10.  Charlemagne and Pope - set the pattern for mutual reinforcement of Church and State - forced conversions - orthodoxy - two wealthy power players.  But ambiguity:  which had ultimate authority?  Three-part society - those who fought, those who prayed, those who labored. 

11.   Charlemagne invades Spain to attack Muslims, but has to leave to deal with Saxon uprising.  Rearguard with loot is defeated somewhere near Pyrenees.   Year 775.  Some couple hundred or so years later, this episode becomes The Song of Roland - a hero tale that paints the Muslim as evil, supports wiping them out of Spain (and/or the overall Crusades), etc.  This becomes the template.

12.  Islamic rule in Spain for centuries, varying strength and weakness.  Cultural, architectural, agricultural, economic, educational wonders.  Kingdoms/states in northern Iberian peninsula eventually become powerful, leading to final expulsion in 1492.

13.  After Charlemagne - pretty quick breakup of the "Holy Roman Empire", Viking raids, a mess.

14.  The Islamic state in Spain (al Andalus) - different than the Baghdad branch.

War and Peace (Leo Tolstoy, 1869) (2007 translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky)

I last read this book during either my sophomore or junior year at Notre Dame (somewhere between 1975 and 1977).  I'm surprised about how little of the plot that I remembered - which made the re-reading all the more delightful.  (I do recall that Prince Andrei was musing about various deep issues and looking at the sky, but I probably recall that only because it was the subject of a paper I wrote.  I now can't find the paper, just the professor's comments (below).  Don't know which professor, but he or she apparently wasn't that thrilled with my efforts.) 

This is a new (2007) translation that I was anxious to read.  Birthday gift from PJr and Nedda.

As I perhaps too often write - the experience of reading a book like this is enhanced to an incredible degree by other reading.  Sure, a book like this also would stand on its own.  But incomparably better with some background.  A simple example - Tolstoy started writing this as a different novel, focusing on the Decembrists.  I wouldn't have had a decent idea where to place that concept until just a few years ago (good discussion here).  Meaning Pierre's activities in the Epilogue would have meant nothing to me during my first reading (not that those activities are central to the book, but still).  Also:  this book about the invasion of Russia was very helpful.  And this on Napoleon's early years.  And this on Tolstoy himself.  Etc. 

The story line moves among a large group of characters, primarily focused on three families:  Rostov, Bolkonsky, Bezukov.  (Also, to a lesser extent, the Kuragin family, annoying as each of its members was.)  Napoleonic war provides background.  It's a novel, it's history, it's also philosophy, extensive musings about the relative importance of the collective will and the individual in history, etc.  Famously long, which permits the story to develop, strong identification with characters, etc.  I was really worried about Natasha and Kuragin, and about what would happen with Prince Andrei.  Among other things.

I think Tolstoy got carried away with the idea of history as a collection of individual wills, little influenced by the actions of individuals.  I think that's wrong.  It was a constant theme in the book.  Tolstoy must have felt pretty strongly about it, had to know it cluttered the story line.  Napoleon clearly inspired so many writers and historians to focus on the role of the "great man" in history.  (For example, this is a great exploration of the topic.) 

Something wonderful about Tolstoy - after I read him for awhile, I feel like I can "see myself" better.  All good novelists achieve this, but I find the effect strongest with with Tolstoy and Proust.  Tolstoy has a wonderfully effective way of casting light on the multiple motivations that affect all of us pretty much all of the time - some mixture of vanity, self-interest, kindness, undue concern about others' opinions, etc.  The effect of "seeing myself" better is strong during and immediately after reading these books, then it starts to wear off.

Example:  how about this description of listening - focused on Natasha vis-à-vis Pierre but more broadly applicable - "Now, as he told it all to Natasha, he experienced that rare pleasure which is granted by women when they listen to a man - not intelligent women, who, when they listen, try either to memorize what they are told in order to enrich their minds and on occasion retell the same thing, or else to adjust what is being told to themselves and quickly say something intelligent of their own . . . "  If one doesn't permit oneself to be distracted by what would nowadays instantly be jumped on as "sexist" in this passage - who doesn't too often listen in precisely this fashion?

Karataev's little sayings while Pierre was a prisoner (and on the march away from Moscow) were great.

Austerlitz, Borodin, occupation of Moscow, Kutuzov.  Pierre trying to find himself; Masons.  Echoes of The Death of Ivan Ilych.  Russian upper classes speaking French, of all things - more fluently than Russian in many cases.  (I can understand how the courtiers in the various countries needed a lingua franca, but the effect here is ironic to say the least.)  Intrigues among courtiers and military staffers.  Tsar Alexander.

Simply wonderful.

[Update 6/24/12:  by coincidence, it is almost exactly the 200th anniversary of Napoleon crossing into Russia, see summary here.]  

---------------------------

Here are my professor's comments - apparently he or she was hoping for some critical thinking . . .  w&p

Dracula (Bram Stoker, 1897)

PJr recommended.  Very much out of the norm for my reading list.  Notwithstanding:  very compelling, I was carried along by the story.  It made me very nervous at certain spots, especially when it was so obvious what was going on with female victim #2 and the male would-be protectors remained oblivious.  Victorian feel.

The introduction had interesting history on vampires - which were not new in literature in 1897 - but this book popularized them.  The genre is stronger than ever as of 2012.    The introduction recounted the story of Lord Byron and friends in Swiss Alps killing time by writing ghost stories - resulting in Frankenstein and The Vampyre:  A Tale.   I saw the silent film Nosferatu several years ago - creepy, very well done - and now I know the term. 

Very effective method of story-telling - Stoker used the device of a series of entries from diaries, journals, letters, legal documents, newspaper clippings - resulting in different voices, different perspectives, sometimes we as readers knew more than the writer of the document would have.  This really worked well.

Romania and environs - tough, wild.

As always:  this book is much more interesting for having read other stuff, such as this (overview and history of the general area) and this (discussing Ottoman incursions through the area). 

There's even a character named Van Helsing!  I had no idea it all started here.

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.

All The King's Men (Robert Penn Warren, 1946)

I've seen bits and pieces of the movie but never read the book.  I thought Broderick Crawford was great in the (1949) movie; didn't realize it won Best Picture (and that Crawford was Best Actor).  Didn't realize there was a 2006 movie version with absolute all star cast (discussed here) that was a colossal failure.

The version I read was billed as a "restored edition" - some professor went back and assembled original version of the story, I think this means changes in chapter 1 plus some other changes.  I obviously don't appreciate if there was a difference.  The demagogue is named Willie Talos in this "restored" version (echoing some Roman from classical times); the later (and far more likely to endure) version of the book - actually the version that already has been in widespread use for 50 years - used the name Willie Stark.  Styled after Huey Long.

Though the story is really about Jack Burden anyway.

I liked the book quite a bit, more than expected.  Would definitively recommend it.

Some echoes of Citizen Kane (with the Joseph Cotten character from the movie reminiscent of Jack Burden).  Many echoes with current politics, as discussed here.  Compelling characters:  Willie Talos/Stark, his wife, his son (Tom), Jack Burden, Sadie Burke, Sugar Boy, Tiny Duffy, Judge Irwin, Anne Stanton, Adam Stanton, Jack Burden's mother and her husbands (the Scholarly Attorney, the Count, the Young Executive).  And I much liked how the time lens of the story moved back and forth, I thought that worked really well. 

There is a really effective section in the middle of the book where Burden describes his research into a family member (undertaken back when Burden was pursuing an advanced degree in history that he never finished) - Cass Mastern - this would be a great stand-alone story.  Cass died in a Confederate hospital in Atlanta during the Civil War; lover of his friend's wife before the war; very compelling how they couldn't stand when slaves had "their eyes on me" - selling Phebe away from her husband; etc.

The most interesting discussions probably occur when Talos/Stark discusses how he gets things done in politics, and why it's ok.  The ridiculous belief that "there was a time a long time back when everything was run by high-minded, handsome men wearing knee breeches and silver buckles or even buckskin and coonskin caps, as the case may be . . . who sat around a table and candidly debated the good of the public thing."  Talos/Stark understands that the world has never worked that way . . . he would say you try to make goodness out of badness "because there isn't anything else to make it out of."  Interesting.

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 Magic Mountain (Thomas Mann, 1924)

"Your statement is incoherent, my good engineer," Settembrini said in reply, "yet its reprehensibility still shines through."  This is an entirely inconsequential quote in the book.  I jotted it down simply because I so much enjoyed the language throughout this book, and it seemed like as good an example as any.  (Maybe I'll get a chance to use this line someday.)

This translation runs a little over 700 pages, and was completely engaging throughout.  Difficult to absorb, I definitely will need to work back through this.  I can see why it appears on so many "must read" lists, and am grateful I finally got around to it.  The typical focus here is on how the book is a metaphor for pre-World War I Europe - and I can somewhat see this - but there's so much more going on.

I think it's wonderful.  Enough to where I just bought the book.

Plot is well-known - an "entirely normal" individual (Hans Castorp) leaves Hamburg and goes to a Swiss sanatorium for a three-week visit to his ill cousin who is a patient there; ends up staying seven years.  Even then would not have found his way out except for external circumstances.  He finds life at 5000+ foot elevation quite different than life in the "flatlands."

Among other things, Hans Castorp immediately notices that "time" is different in the mountains.  The setting, the role of illness, the lack of prescribed tasks (other than five meals per day and several "rest cures"), a climate where snow can (and does) fall any month of the year - make time almost irrelevant.  How time changes when one goes on a vacation or otherwise experiences a break from one's normal schedule. Mann muses about this quite a bit.  I need to think about this.  My own experience of "time" is changing - after decades of being nothing but extremely busy, I am consciously seeking not to be. It matters.

The role of illness - a very compelling way of discussing how illness can make day-to-day concerns meaningless.  But they're not meaningless.  How is this reconciled?  Similarly:  the role of death - for all, but particularly for patients in a setting where many don't survive.  Patients typically taking treatment in the "horizontal position" (including at "rest cure") - but then there also was the permanent horizontal position, often commencing before death.

Sanatorium director - Behrens - seems like a quack/salesperson - but there are genuinely ill folks at the institution, and he seems genuinely interested in helping them. Not sure how to take him.

Hans Castorp's cousin, Joachim Ziemssen - well-liked, military.

Hans Castorp is very interested in sometimes-fellow patient, Clavdia Chauchat.

Two major characters are introduced - both required to live at elevation due to poor health - Herr Settembrini - the Italian, humanist, democrat, Freemason - and Naptha - Jewish and converted to Catholicism, would-be Jesuit, now a teacher at the high school.  There are many, many pages devoted to the musings and arguments of these two folks on every imaginable topic - often directed to Hans Castorp.  Settembrini sometimes sets up Asia v. Europe, with Germany in the fulcrum.  Much of this may relate to pre-war conditions, but I don't know how to put that together.  It is all very interesting, very erudite; the more one has read, the more interesting it would be.

Then Mynheer Peeperkorn shows up (with Clavdia Chauchat) - he is typically incoherent in speech, yet dominates all - elderly, regal, Hans Castorp keeps referring to his dominant "personality" - the point being that this seems to leave the two scholarly disputants overwhelmed.  Interesting, I don't know what this is about - force of personality over strength of rationality, logic, articulate-ness?  I wonder whether the original German term translates to "personality" in the way I think of the term?

I enjoyed the description of the short (and prematurely-ended) visit of Hans Castorp's uncle.

Hans Castorp was a mediocrity when he arrived at the sanatorium, but learned a great deal during seven years.  Including a phase where he learned lots of details about the way nature works (anatomy, botany, etc.) - interesting contrast to the esoterica, interesting interplay with his interest in Clavdia.

And what was going on at the end of the book - Hans Castorp's interest in music (via a new phonograph); the girl with medium powers; the "great petulance" that seemed to lead to confrontations (this did seem to have a presaging effect).  Then, a very powerful finish.

There's something going on here - about our entirely proper focus on job, day to day responsibilities, social standing, politics and current events, the sorts of ostensibly deeper digs by folks like Settembrini and Naptha - all so worthwhile and important - yet how this inevitably gets swamped by illness, change of circumstance, falling in love, big personality, points of honor, physical attraction, the power of music, perhaps even whatever goes on with a medium.  Hmm.

Ivan's War - Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945 (Catherine Merridale, 2006)

At the beginning of the book - highly reviewed - I was getting disappointed.  Much of the content was narrative about key WWII battles in which the Red Army participated - stuff that I've read about and wasn't looking for more detail at the moment -Kursk, Stalingrad, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Berlin, etc.

The author also was trying to describe "how it felt", and I thought her effort paled in comparison to this one (though I see its author was recruited for a blurb on the back jacket).

But I liked this better as I went along.  Quick, easy read; interesting, all in all.

The Russian soldier must have had the most difficult experience of the WWII combatants (recognizing this is difficult, and probably just plain wrong, to try to rank).  But think about it.  The country came through the czarist upheavals, Bolshevik takeover, WWI failures, Red v. White civil war, Stalin's tightening grip, 1930s terror, collectivization, starvation in the Ukraine, intense army purges, hateful rhetoric toward Germany, then a non-aggression pact with Germany - this was before war broke out.

Stalin then froze up, the Germans almost took the country, millions were killed or taken prisoner.  Horrific fighting.  Utter disregard for loss of life among Soviet leaders.  Much of Russia overrun - with unbelievable brutality - by the Nazis.  Low level of professionalism in the army - too much influence of the political advisers.  One defeat after the next.  Can't overstate what the Nazis did to the Slavs - completely different behavior than in, for example, France.

Penal battalions.  Blocking units - to shoot down folks trying to run away from the front.

Yet they came together after Stalingrad - simply amazing.

As they pushed the Germans back through Russia and its territories - these areas were devastated a second time.

As the Russians advanced into Romania and beyond - shocked to see that capitalist countries lived so well.  (Yes, apparently even Romania looked pretty good in comparison to Russia in those days.)

Into Germany - pillaging, brutal rapes, constantly; fed by propaganda from the top.  This left a sour taste for many - not what they signed up for.  Difficult fighting all the way to Berlin.

Even though archives became available - very little in them, at least as discovered so far.  Censors controlled.  Similarly, surviving soldiers generally didn't want to talk much - part of the coping mechanism, I suppose, similar even for US vets.

After the war - some talk of heroes, and genuine gratitude.  But Stalin didn't want to share glory.  Moreso, these folks moved back into a wrecked country, that had been at war longer, that had been occupied and terrorized by worst behavior; back into a socialist system, collectives, famine, suspicion, transports, complete denial of any psychological problems, limited support.

Just amazing.

Between the Woods and the Water (Patrick Leigh Fermor, 1986)

I became aware of this book in a discussion of "travel" books.  It's that - and much more.  Relatively short.  Delightful.  (It's also a wonderful companion to this book about pre-WWI Austria - pure coincidence I read them so closely in time.)  

In the 1930s, the author (Fermor) - then youthful - set off on foot from Holland to Constantinople (as it was then known) after not thriving at school in England.  He took notes along the way, in varying degrees of detail depending on circumstances.  (Yes, it's quite a journey.)

In the 1940s, Fermor was in the British army - interestingly, using his knowledge of the area that included Greece and Crete (in part learned on the 1930s stroll-about) - and became a well-known war hero.  He parachuted into Crete, kidnapped a German general, smuggled him into Egypt.  Among other things.

In his 60s, Fermor started turning his 1930s adventures into book form.  So he was a very different Fermor than the wandering youth.  I'm guessing this is one of the two biggest reasons why the book works so well.  The book was intended to be released in three parts (though the third part didn't happen).  This book is number two in the sequence - when Fermor, 19 years old, travels from the Danube on the border between Hungary and Slovakia, to the "Iron Gates" at the border of Romania and (what was then called) Yugoslavia.  This book was written in the 1980s.

The other big reason the book is so wonderful - the timing of his walk - 1930s - much had already changed as a result of World War I, but Fermor saw, up-close, a world that was shattered in the 1940s and isolated behind the Iron Curtain for 40+ years thereafter.  The stories of his encounters seem scarcely possible in the 20th century.  Yet it was written less than 30 years ago - amazing.

Some things I liked:

1.  His use of the English language is delightful.

2.  As this book so interestingly explained - this part of the world was actually heavily integrated into Europe for centuries - after decades behind the Iron Curtain, we tend to think of its separate-ness, or other-ness.  This biography of Lizst made the same point in a different way.  Educated folks in this part of the world looked to the West prior to WWII, and were part of "Europe."

3.  As this book so interestingly explained - this part of the world also was heavily involved with the East - primarily the Ottoman Turks.  Extensive Muslim influence going back centuries.  Fermor wandered near many famous battlegrounds.  Hungary was dominated by Constantinople for many years.

4.  Fermor intended to live among the commoners while traveling on foot.  But he had introductions to nobility in Hungary, and was rather passed along from welcoming house to welcoming house (all the way into Romania).  He expressed some guilt about straying from plan, but clearly was massively enjoying these encounters.  Hungarian nobility wasn't necessarily all that wealthy, at least in a cash sense, in those days.  And there were lots of Hungarian counts floating around.  But they certainly retained the old traditions of hospitality.

5.  Interesting background on the Magyars, Habsburgs, etc.  And about rivalries with Romania, Serbia, etc.  He covers the Louis Kossuth events, which were interestingly explained in this book. 

6.  He wanders through Romania - which included areas of Hungarian population - explains Vlad the Impaler plus the Dracula origins (derived from dragon).  Explains the wandering tribes that, over the centuries, populated these areas.

7.  Carpathians, Wallachia, Moldova.  Now I have a better feel for this geography.  (Which is helping as I finish a book about the Red Army heading toward Berlin in 1944.)

8.  Fermor encounters numerous gypsy settlements.  And old-style shepherds.  In the 20th century!

9.  He runs into odd Christian and Jewish sects - fascinating histories - thoroughly isolated - reformation and counter-reformation reached here, but only about so much.

10.  Old-style forests - beautiful descriptions of nature - where wolves and bears still lived.

11.  Certainly didn't know or recall that the Romans were very active in campaigns against the Dacians.  Which does bring to mind "Romania" as a place-name.  High level of activity right near the "Iron Gates." 

This book was fascinating in its own right, but fit in so well with other things I find interesting.

quote-source

Partly because I use his quotes atop both of my principal blogs, I found this article (riffing on a Daily Beast writer (an odd reference for me)) to be interesting:  Montaigne: The Father of Us All.   ("Sullivan is right to hail Montaigne as the literary father of the blog and the world of blogging continues to move along the lines Montaigne first laid out.")

OK, what I'm doing here isn't along those lines at all, but still.  Montaigne = unusually interesting.

Night Train to Lisbon (Pascal Mercier, 2004)

Unusual read for me - a (relatively) current novel.  I liked this quite a bit.  Thoughtful, deliberate, meditative, unusual.

A teacher (Gregorius) of classics in a Bern (Switzerland) high school has an enigmatic (and brief) encounter with a Portuguese woman while heading to his school.  He's ready for change; runs into a book by a Portuguese author (Amadeu Prado) by happenstance in a local bookstore immediately after this encounter; the book speaks to him (let's say) and he ends up on the night train to Lisbon.  And just like that:  Gregorious is retired from a long-ish career at his high school and off to some developments in Portugal.

The book discovered by Gregorius included a collection of essays by Amadeu (a Portuguese doctor who wrote for his own understanding, not an author).  Amadeu had ended up in some very difficult situations under the Salazar dictatorship (of which this book gave me a good overview) some thirty years previous, and died of an aneurysm shortly after those events.  Gregorius searches for information to understand Amadeu and his writings (and, simultaneously, himself).

Characters were very well developed:

Adriana - Amadeu's older sister
Melodie - Amadeu's younger sister
Father Bartolomeu - Amadeu's high school teacher
Joao Eca - torture victim
Jorge O'Kelly - Amadeu's best friend growing up
Mariana Eca - eye doctor
Silveira - Portuguese businessman with whom Gregorius strikes up a friendship
Maria Joao - Amadeu's confidant (going back to high school)
Estafania Espinhosa - joined resistance, came between Amadeu and Jorge.

We learn about Amadeu's father (twisted by disease, a judge), mother, wife (Fatima); Gregorious's family ; etc.

They traveled to Finisterre - what a great place-name.

I don't know exactly what this was about.  The characters explore words, books, philosophers, knowledge, self-knowledge, limits of knowledge, religion, relationships, love, mortality, decisions when faced with power (torture), on and on.  They play chess and smoke.  They observe that heavy readers are different people.  Somehow in all this I actually cared about the characters (though sometimes the passages from Amadeu's book seemed long).  This is worth reading, and I think worth revisiting.

The Radetzky March (Joseph Roth, 1932)

I've had this on my reading list for quite awhile, it was well worth the wait.

Traces three generations of the Trotta family - Austrian nobility - as the Habsburg dynasty approaches its end point with the onset of World War I.  First generation was a soldier of peasant stock who was elevated to the nobility after saving Franz Josef's life on the battlefield at Solferino (which was a much bigger battle than I remembered).  Second generation Trotta became a career diplomat after his father dissuaded him from joining the military.  Third generation Trotta re-entered the military - but seemed better suited to functioning in the style of his peasant ancestors.  Franz Josef of course lived to a very old age, and he reappears throughout the novel in various contacts with the Trotta family members.

I know nothing of the author except read he is ranked with Thomas Mann among central European authors of the period.

This book reminded me very much of three-generation stories that I have read in the last couple months; the first two having been focused on South America and Italy, respectively.    It is an odd coincidence that those three books all ended up in the queue at the same time.

As with the other books - this is a great construct to communicate the loss (or change) of a particular way of life.  Austria in particular was poised for drastic changes. 

Some losses in third generation Trotta's regiment (resulting from a duel, actually) were broadly felt by the survivors - Roth has an effective way of pointing out that losses like this just felt different before the mechanized killing of World War I, which took away the personal element; humans were just another (replaceable) cog in the machine.

As best I can tell the Habsburgs did a decent job trying to hold together all the national minorities in their dominions.  Sounds though they were reactionary and then some, but it's hard to see that things were better off for their demise.  The second Trotta, from his administrative post, was the author's vehicle for communicating the way in which grievances and politics surrounding these national minorities largely overtook the old empire.  Leading to Wilson, self-determination, nationalism, persistent slaughter in this difficult corner of the world.

Third generation Trotta ends up in a border town - near Russia - very interesting descriptions of early 20th-century life there.  Franz Ferdinand's assassination is announced during a party there.

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."

One Hundred Years of Solitude (Gabriel Garcia Marquez, 1967)

This book shows up on "top 100" lists; I also see it described as one of, if not the greatest, Latin American novels.  I would say I liked it quite a bit, but - perhaps lacking perspective? - I didn't find it nearly as compelling as all that.

The story covers 100 years in the town of Macondo, founded by the Buendia family; the focus is on several generations of the Buendias.  Quite confusing as the author has the family use the same names (or minor variants) from generation to generation - difficult to tell one from the other - then I belatedly realized that was the author's intention.

I can see that the author addresses the cycle of liberal/conservative civil war in Latin America; incursion of foreign capital (banana plantations, in this case); role of the Catholic Church; continuation of traditional beliefs and practices; family loyalties, etc.

I just couldn't relate that well to any of the numerous characters.  The male Buendias are impulsive/obsessive; or dreamers.  The women are more grounded, but often are unable to connect (Amaranta).  Magical events occur; time folds in on itself or at least circles around; the gypsy leader is influential over the entire hundred years (and probably before and after, elsewhere); plenty of weird things happen.

The Colonel starts, and loses, 32 wars.  And makes little fishes.  Ursula is on the journey that resulted in the founding of Macondo, and lives to well over 100.

I need to think about this one a bit more, or something.