The Master and Margarita (Mikhail Bulgakov, written in 1930s, published 1966-67)

Similar to this novel in two ways:  translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky; gift from PJr and Nedda (this was for Father's Day).

The devil and his devilishly delightful retinue visit Moscow in Stalin-era 1930s.  The novel incorporates two intertwined stories (i) the devil's doings in Moscow; and (ii) a version of the Pontius Pilate story that is readily recognizable, but different from the version in the gospels.

The book was way too hot to be printed in the author's lifetime - he died in 1940, his wife (Margarita supposedly based on her) held together the manuscript and had it printed in the west in the 1960s.  After samizdat versions had circulated (reminded me of descriptions of circulated literature in this book).  So it had a publishing history not unlike works such as this one and or this one; just remarkable to think what life was like for these writers in Soviet-era Russia.  Esp. in 1930s.  Too hot to be printed because of the spot-on descriptions of issues under the Soviet system

Just delightful, though I now need to learn more about what Bulgakov was doing - pretty sure I missed lots of what was going on.  His use of language, literary allusions, writing style - all great (at least insofar as we can tell through lens of translation).  Much enjoyed reading the entire book.  Unexpectedly found the Pilate portions every bit as compelling, if not moreso, than the main tale.

"The Master" was writing a Pilate novel as part of the main plot - his work is rejected by the literary bureaucrats.  Faithful Margarita - willing to go a long way to support the Master.  Various officials at The Variety - bad consequences from the black magic seance.  Foreign currency; foreign currency store (foreigners only!).  The cat (Behemoth) - always entertaining, loves the primus stove (a cooking device mentioned often in this book).  Koroviev; Azazello.  It all started with Ivan and Berlioz showing off their atheist bonafides to Woland - and Berlioz being unceremoniously beheaded shortly thereafter in an unrelated, I think, incident.

Pilate and his secret police force; his subtle way of approaching the Judas Iscariot issue; KGB (or its predecessor) would have been proud.

Numerous echos of this book, naturally enough - very helpful to have read it.  (At the gym, I'm currently in the middle of Thomas Mann's Dr. Faustus, which will fit in quite nicely with all this.)

LACMA (August 5, 2012)

As mentioned in this post, EPG took us to LA County Museum of Art on Sunday, August 5.

After the visit, we were discussing LACMA in comparison to the Getty (where EPG took us last year).  Both are wonderful places, to be sure.  The Getty grounds are more impressive, for whatever that's worth.  We probably prefer Getty, would gladly revisit both.

I thought the German expressionism - if that's the right term, I don't really know - was the most interesting exhibit of our 8/5/12 visit.  Really ties into WWI and inter-war stuff I've been reading.  How a wrecked country looked for some answers, or something - they faced a level of change that is unimaginable.

Click any image to enlarge all.  (And how about this look at LACMA?)

First item - caption immediately beneath it - self-explanatory.  Done by some poor guy that lived through the eastern front.

Second item - communist party - a serious contender for influence in Germany during these days (and elsewhere in the world, including the US).  Rosa Luxemburg.  Description beneath is useful.

Third item - the "Orator" - 1920 - eerie precursor to Hitler, one might say in hindsight - desperate people prone to falling for someone who appears to lead them out of the abyss.

Fourth item - just read the below description - this is detail from a large work - since it's from the French Revolution, it was interesting to me.

Item 5 - this looked great in the gallery, especially the sand.

Item 6 - they had some pop/folk contemporary work from Iran.  We were leaving so I didn't get a chance to figure out what this is supposed to be

And then there's the previously posted "Madonna with Child, Times Two".  Best in show.

The Lady in Gold - The Extraordinary Tale of Gustav Klimt's Masterpiece (Anne-Marie O'Connor, 2012)

Far more interesting than anticipated.  I'm sure it helped that I've recently read quite a bit more about Austria and this historical period (most recently here and here).  This had strands of Austria in twilight of Habsburg empire, incorporation of Jews into the empire, all of the famous musicians, scientists, thinkers in Vienna c. 1900, Nazi looting of war art, concentration camps, Anschluss, etc.  Not to mention the main story lines about Klimt's art and the postwar efforts to reunite lost art works with owners or heirs.

The far-more-famous portrait (version 1)

Klimt apparently quite the personality - not of noble birth, but an obvious artistic talent that received major commissions.  He and others decided they needed to be "free" of the usual bourgeois restraints - no doubt some artistic considerations here, but some of this is just uninteresting pushing of boundaries for its own sake.    Klimt got into doing nudes; quite a bit apparently pornographic more than anything else; loved having relationships with his female models (reportedly had 14 children by them).

But Klimt was an undeniable talent.  Jews - generally accepted and successful in Viennese society notwithstanding some strong anti-Semitic strains - were more willing to sponsor non-mainstream artists like Klimt.  He did a pricey portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer.  Then a second portrait years later - more realistic, far less attractive.  The author was more than willing to endlessly speculate whether Klimt had an affair with Bloch-Bauer - whatever, no one knows, who cares.  That got tiresome.

The circles these folks ran in - Gustav and Alma Mahler.  Sigmund Freud.  Arnold Schoenberg.

Hitler as making a serious attempt at becoming an artist in Vienna.  Walking the streets there at the same time as all these other folks!  Perhaps contributing to his view of the relationships of Jews and "degenerate" artists.  (Not surprisingly, the Nazis did not care for most of Klimt's work - though they did recognize the significance of Adele's portrait #1.  Couldn't display it as originally titled - a Jewess! - so just gave it a neutral name (The Lady in Gold, if I recall correctly).

#2 - more realistic.

I hadn't realized that the Ringstrasse was made possible by tearing down the old city walls (useful in repelling Turks all the way up to 1683).

The stories about Nazi looting and other depredations were effective in this book - partly because the characters and families had been introduced.  Interesting escape stories; generally bad outcomes for Jews who waited too long.  The same effect held with the moral ambiguities facing Austrians in the face of a Nazi tide - how does one react?  Wow.

As discussed in Tony Judt's work - how Austria, perhaps more than anywhere else, tried to position itself after the war as Hitler's "first victim" - deliberate amnesia.  That seems pretty understandable, also - ugh - but somehow life needed to go on.  Later generations were more willing to look into the unpleasant facts.  Kurt Waldheim, for example.

And real ambiguity about how to handle stolen artworks - should they remain on exhibition in Austria?  Or returned to heirs, somewhat distant, for resale into the private market where they end up who knows where?

Remodeling the Belvedere (built for Eugene of Savoy!) as a back-up bunker for Hitler.  Stolen artworks hidden there.

Los Angeles expats - Bertolt Brecht, Thomas Mann, Alma Mahler, Schoenberg, Billy Wilder.

Adele's portrait #1 as the center of the controversy - partly because an aging heir (sympathetic figure) residing in LA found a lawyer who pushed the case.  And to what a result!  Not resolved until around 2006.  An Estee Lauder heir as buyer.  Interesting story (with picture of the primary plaintiff (Maria)) about the purchase is here.

Light in August (William Faulkner, 1932)

I have avoided Faulkner, but this book makes me reconsider.

What do blacks think of works like this?  A period piece (from 1932)?  Joe Christmas's alleged Negro blood is not presented very favorably (or am I projecting that somehow).  The description of the "negro" part of town.  Etc.

Also seems like there are lots of characters who were "Christian" in pretty psycho sort of way.

Maybe all this was a staple of the South in this era?  In one way the story/setting reminded me of this book:  a world really far away, I couldn't even imagine what that was like.

Main story lines are interconnected:

Lena Grove is pregnant and looking for the father - Lucas Burch (who is on the run under the name Joe Brown).  Lena gets to the right town and runs into Byron Bunch, who helps her get settled and get in touch with Burch/Brown (while falling in love with her himself).  (I know there are lots of Christianity allusions in this book though typically I miss stuff like that; but even I could pick up Lena evoking the unwed Mary with child, Bunch evoking the Joseph figure here.)

The town's ex-preacher is Gail Hightower - his grandfather was killed in the Civil War (though not gloriously).  Hightower keeps having visions of Civil War cavalry charges; this obsession (and a let's say unsatisfactory relationship with his wife) is why he is "ex" preacher.  Bunch consults with him, etc.

Joe Christmas is an orphan adopted by conservative parents - doesn't conform with the father's wishes, has uniformly negative relationships with women, starts selling alcohol illegally and uses Burch/Brown as a go-fer in the business.  Stays in an old negro cabin on a property owned by a wealthy northern woman who was ostracized by the town because she supported progress for blacks.  They have a relationship.  The woman gets murdered - not clear which of two suspects did it, however.

Burch/Brown's claim that Christmas had negro blood served him in good stead.  The sheriff captures Christmas eventually and he is visited by his grandparents (who he's never seen).

Not sure what to make of this, but I liked it.

The Little Red Guard - A Family Memoir (Wenguang Huang, 2012)

The story starts in 1973 - Grandma decides she wants a traditional Chinese burial alongside her long-deceased husband.  China - under population pressure - doesn't permit this (cremation only).  Her son - who takes great pride in being "filial" in traditional way - is conflicted.  Wants to help his mother, but also has been a supporter (though eyes wide open) of the Communist regime.  Arranging a traditional burial could be done, but would be risky to his career as a Party member.

Story is written by the eldest grandson who - after his father decides to accommodate Grandma - ends up sleeping in the same room as the coffin for a few years.  Then moves on to foreign language school, eventually ends up in U.S. as a writer.

This was all pretty interesting, but I don't particularly recommend the book.  Useful lens on 20th-century China, starting with the travails of the 1940s - famine, Japanese incursion, revolution, etc.  Then the Mao era - with ridiculous, lethal policies abounding.  Political winds shift course as the leadership encourages cultural revolution, living in the countryside, anti-bourgeois, profit-seeking, then backs off, etc., over the course of the years.

We are somewhat aware of the mass starvation under Mao's agricultural "policies" but this book did tend to bring home the concept of hunger - the author's mother would go out to wheat fields after they were harvested and crawl around on hands and knees trying to find grains that had been missed.  These folks weren't in direct danger of starvation - but, wow.

The main story line rather dragged given that Grandma lived on for about 20 years after requesting the coffin, outliving her "filial" son; and the eldest grandson (author) was away when she died, so he missed out as well.

Quick read, useful insights, not that great.  China is really, really different than anything in my experience.

The First World War (John Keegan, 1998)

I've recently been going into some specific facets of WWI (such as this very good work); I very much liked the pictorial version of this book as described here; so I decided to take up the narrative version as a bit of a review and recap.  Much worthwhile.  Keegan writes really well.  And he is charmingly supportive of his native country (England).

Something good about this book:  more focus on the Eastern front (and Italy).  Typically not emphasized in WWI stuff I've read so far.  Russia laboring away for three long years before communists cut out - I had the impression Russia had pretty much checked out after Tannenbaum - not so.

Then there's just the overall amazing-ness- that a war like his could happen in a prosperous Europe with so much in common across all of these countries - culture, religion, business ties, travel (including tourism now involving, for the first time, the middle and lower classes).  Not sure how to measure but the connectedness across Europe might have been stronger than even today, given interposition of the Iron Curtain and separate (and dramatically different) development paths for decades.  100 years later - these folks have been EU partners in one form or the other, admittedly with varying degrees of success, for decades already!  Why were they killing one another so vigorously, so recently?

The German naval build-up was a very, very real factor in reducing England's choices.

Have read elsewhere about Sarajevo, the interlocking alliances, the inevitability of mobilization; that Germany believed it needed to act quickly.

That WWII is not a separate war at all!  The more one reads, the clearer it is that WWII was merely a continuation of WWI.

Have read elsewhere of the futility of frontal assaults in the trenches.  Of Verdun, the Somme, Ypres, etc.  The breathtaking, shocking casualties - simply unbelievable - yet they kept at it for years.  How, how did this happen??

Kitchener's groups - units from single towns in England, inexperienced, predictable (at least in hindsight) devastation for particular towns.

How easy it is to criticize the commanders - and they probably deserve most of it - Keegan does note the paramount importance of real time communications in a complex, fluid situation, and how the persistent failure of that factor - placed alongside the industrial killing apparatus - limited commanders and contributed to the slaughter.  Commanders could not obtain information, communicate decisions, accomplish anything once battle was joined.

The courage, the sacrifice, the slaughter.  Today's cynicism - much stemming from WWI - hadn't yet set in.  It has now, with a deserved vengeance.

America's entry - the mass of numbers - men and equipment - Germany spent, Austria worthless per usual.

"But then the First World War is a mystery.  Its origins are mysterious.  So is its course.  Why did a prosperous continent, at the height of its success as a source and agent of global wealth and power and at one of the peaks of its intellectual and cultural achievement, choose to risk all it had won for itself and all it offered to the world in the lottery of a vicious and local internecine conflict?  Why, when the hope of bringing the conflict to a quick and decisive conclusion was everywhere dashed to the ground within months of its outbreak, did the combatants decide nevertheless to persist in their military effort, to mobilize for total war and eventually to commit the totality of their young manhood to mutual and existentially pointless slaughter?"

Why, indeed?

Everything about this is simply fascinating, and so disheartening.  I will keep reading about it.

How to Live -or- A Life of Montaigne (Sarah Bakewell, 2010)

Wasn't sure how to approach this book - it had great reviews, and Montaigne is Montaigne; but the insipid self-help industry (of which this book smacks) typically is annoying, at best.  


After reading through (pretty quickly):  I would say this book comes down somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately more on the self-help side.  I don't recommend it; to the extent the book was interesting, it was mostly due to putting some context around Montaigne's life and times.  And that did have some value.

There are 20 chapters responding to the titular question ("How to live?") - with gems such as "Do a good job, but not too good a job;" "Reflect on everything; regret nothing;" "Be ordinary and imperfect;" etc.  You get the idea.

This is standard stuff for the self-help industry, which - like the weight loss industry - appears to be completely worthless, yet recession-proof.  Only a really wealthy society could actually blow $$ on this stuff.

So skip this book and just the read the Essays themselves, as folks have been doing for centuries.

Dreadnought - Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War (Robert K. Massie, 1991)

Robert Massie writes history in a way that comes across as great stories.  I previously had the good fortune to read Nicholas and Alexandra and his biography of Peter the Great.  This one - very good, though I think unnecessarily long - over the 900 pages, I think he devoted too much space to biographical details of too many figures in England and Germany in these days.

But the book is still entirely worth reading (I coped by just blowing through the parts that provided more detail than I wanted).  And there is a very real benefit to all the biographical detail - it gives some sort of glimpse into the human side of the key figures involved in the naval build-up that preceded World War I.

The early part of the book gets into the familial ties between Britain and Germany.  We all remember that Kaiser Wilhelm was Queen Victoria's grandson (and therefore the nephew and cousin of the two kings that succeeded Victoria prior to World War I).  And that Victoria herself had a German mother.  But going through the detail underscored the tight personal relationships.  (And something like this extended across most of the remaining courts.)  Amazing that they could end up at war.

The early part also discussed Bismark.  The hopes for liberal parliamentary in the combined Germany - certainly this seemed to be the prevailing desire in 1848.  Bismark embodied conservative Prussian values, very different - the combined Germany he created focused power in Chancellor and Kaiser.  Wilhlem's father's premature death may have ended the last hopes for liberal parliament; Bismark et al had cultivated Wilhelm to be conservative.  


Wilhelm's interest in building a German navy - shared by Tirpitz - Wilhelm's interest probably based on experiences in England.  Germany as a rising power with large population, positioned to dominate Europe.  But weak sea access, and subordinate to British navy for colonies, etc.  Wilhelm didn't want this to continue, England - as a sea power - couldn't permit Germany to approach its fleet sizes.  A true arms race.

Jackie Fisher - interesting admiral - British navy changes dramatically to embrace new technologies.  It was not easy to achieve change - no big naval engagements for a century, so often dealing with obsolete wooden ships where the focus was on cleaning the decks.  Leading to "dreadnoughts" - fast, heavily armored, massive guns - a whole new game.  How to pay for them?

The name "Dreadnought" seems inspired in connection with these awful vessels of destruction - vaguely terrifying - the motto for the original dreadnought was "Fear God - and Dread Naught".  Because these ships were designed such that they didn't need to fear anything (remember, there were no attack planes in existence at the time).

England sees a need for something it traditionally resisted - some form of continental alliance - mostly due to Germany's growing strength, including strength at sea.  Many efforts to reach an understanding with Germany; but it ends up being with France and Russia.

A young Winston Churchill taking over the navy in the last years before the war.

The events following the assassination in Sarajevo - many, many opportunities for the leaders to head off the war.  German generals emphatically believing that Germany was surrounded, that the Slavs were regaining strength and needed to be dealt with "now"; manipulating, at least somewhat, the political leadership.  The Schlieffen plan to attack through Belgium and how this ultimately brought England into the war. The lamps going out all over Europe.

I wonder how it could have been worse if England had stayed out of the war.  Seems Germany could then have delivered the planned knockout blow in France.  Would that have been worse than WWI as it unfolded (including aftermath such as WWII, disaster in eastern Europe, etc.)?

The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia (Samuel Johnson, 1759)

I much liked Boswell's biography of Johnson, but still have trouble figuring out where he fits in the literary world.  Other than his dictionary and all the essays, aphorisms and bon mots - I think he wrote quite a bit of other stuff, but don't know that it really took off.  I signed out of the library a one-volume collection of selected "prose and poetry" by Johson - started working through it, decided not to keep after it.  Probably gave up too soon, but it wasn't that interesting.

I did work all the way through a short story - Rasselas - didn't find it all that compelling either.  I think this is one of his better-known works.  It reminded me of Voltaire's Candide;  but I didn't like it as much.

Junior members of Abyssinian royalty are confined to a hidden valley from which it is impossible to escape - though all needs are met in the finest possible way.  Rasselas becomes discontented, eventually escapes with his sister and their tutor (who had experience in the outside world).  They go around trying to find happiness, or purpose - meet up with various folks, find out that it's a pretty complicated issue.  Eventually they go back to Abyssinia - wiser, perhaps somewhat sadder as well.

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.