The Discovery of France (Graham Robb, 2007)

This book is subtitled "A Historical Geography from the Revolution to the First World War."

As I keep reading more French history and novelists, this type of book comes into focus. I liked it a lot, a very different look at France. The author claims to have traveled 14,000 miles through France over the course of several years - by bicycle. I can believe this would provide some unusual perspective.

There are countless interesting items. Overarching theme: what we think of as "France" might more accurately be thought of as a smallish area surround Paris; the rest is broken up into a large number of "pays", let alone larger regions - each with long histories, traditions, cultures, etc. Most didn't speak French, or think of themselves as French at all.

After the Revolution, the government actively sought to imbue the entire country with a national spirit, standardize the language etc. But it sounds like students learned "French" similar to how students learned "Latin" - something to be forgotten immediately after graduation.

Items:

1. Pagan beliefs lingered. An explanation of Lourdes in terms of local fairies; benefits of tourism. Local saints and cults (often overlays of pagan predecessors) stronger than other forms of religion.

2. Trips by early map-makers - surprised by hostility, unfamiliar dialects (or languages), unfamiliar terrain.

3. Royal roads - otherwise local bypass. Built for royal convenience - you almost always had to pass through Paris to go anywhere.

4. Early tourism, including to the Alps. Tourist spots - spas - often inventing their own histories and therapeutic powers. No one interested in hanging out by the sea until tourism. Contact between the tourists and the locals (reminding me of Proust when his character stayed seaside).

5. Descriptions of the propaganda (often directed at school children) following the loss of Alsace and Lorraine in 1870 - makes it more believable how this was such a hot topic prior to World War I.

6. The effect of bicycle - four million in France prior to WW I. Opened up the world to folks who previously knew almost no one outside their immediate zone.

7. The mind-numbing boredom of winter in French Alps for poor persons - limited food, limited oil for lamps, generally unable to even read, nothing to do - this is hard to imagine.

8. The famous French cuisine - again, Paris-centered. Most others were too poor. This author thinks many of the regional specialties are pure marketing.

The Last Station

Saw this movie at Camelview with PJ and Liz (during her AZ visit).

Liked it a lot.

The story focused on Tolstoy's end-of-life. As discussed here: the wife he loved and couldn't live with, or without. Tolstoyans - followed Tolstoy's later blandishments far more than he did. Chertkov's efforts to take control of copyrights.

Much of the story was told from the viewpoint of a Tolstoy acolyte who showed quite a bit of independence, found a love affair of his own, etc.

Hadn't realized that the book on which the movie was based was written by the same guy that did the Frost bio PJ and I enjoyed.

Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand, 1957)

Kerry and Nicole had bought this book for me for Christmas. Because I had reached my early 50s without actually reading any of Rand's stuff.

I can see why her writings have gained in popularity - the Obama "hope and change" ruse fits right in with her messaging.

Her characters reminded me a bit of a Dan Brown novel, so that part wasn't so great for me. But the messaging - especially accessible to anyone who on any scale funds situations and gets to observe the too-common reactions of some of those being funded - is spot-on. Writ large, it's the increasingly tiresome rhetoric from politicians and non-profits in endless attack on their sole funding source - the sliver of the population that actually produces the wealth that keeps the entire system afloat.

The mistake of kowtowing to the takers' faux moralizing.

John Galt's best line: "Get the hell out of my way!"

Moscow 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March (Adam Zamoyski, 2004)

I'd read a book or two already about this situation so was a bit unsure whether to read another one . . . but this one was well worth it.

The basic story line involves a long list of larger-than-life elements, which are pretty well known. Napoleon. Alexander. Etc.

Some other thoughts:

1. Zamoya thinks the criticism Napoleon took for starting the campaign late was unfair - felt he had no real choice due to the logistics around the horses and fodder. (Though this failed in the end, creating huge problems.)

2. Examples of Russian incompetence - political fallout as the Russian armies retreated. Kutuzov considered a national hero for various political reasons over time; Zamoya thinks he was ineffective.

3. Interesting information about the Russian army - 20-year hitches, pretty much everyone other than serfs bought their way out. The villages held a funeral when a serf went to the army because it was so unlikely that he would be seen again. Yet somehow they fought like dogs.

4. Marshal Ney unbelievably courageous.

5. The famous battle at Borodino - where the French win but lose. War and Peace based on this.

6. Moscow; fires.

7. The too-late retreat - I don' t think the author was gratuitously gory and violent in describing this, it plainly was just awful. Freezing, nothing to eat, both armies suffering mightily; the French would finally reach a destination and find out the logistics had failed again. Heroic bridge builders at river crossings (esp. the Berezina, where an unbelievable escape was achieved).

8. To some extent the peasants were armed and involved; this led to some agitation for political and social change; some of the military types ultimately became the 1825 Decembrists.

9. Alexander sold liberalism/reform to Europe. But things ended up very reactionary in Russia; and Prussia took a leading role in what much later became became Germany - also reactionary.

10. Stendahl part of the retreat - but early, lucky for him. He made it back to France. An incredibly small percentage of the Grande Armee survived.

The Inheritance of Rome - Illuminating the Dark Ages (Chris Wickham, 2009)

The author had two main goals if I understand things correctly. First, he wanted to debunk the notion that the era from 400 - 1000 was a simple "dark" age wedged between the "fall" of Rome and the stirrings of modernity. Second, he observes the many claims that were made, probably mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries, about the birth of European nations, with politicians searching for roots in the 400-1000 era that would support whatever borders or ideology they were pushing for at the time.

I liked the book a bunch, though it did slow down a bit along the way. Part of this is a scope problem - even if sources in this area are somewhat limited, it is a daunting task to cover all of Europe and beyond over five centuries.

I do think his two main tasks are important. He does a good job of explaining how the transition of Roman power in the west took place over a long period of time; barbarians having served in the Roman army and as administrators etc. How Roman customs and forms survived with varying strength over time.

It is interesting to read how the church and the state grew in complementary ways - each needed the others. Also how land was donated to monasteries -turns out this was a good way for families to continue to control blocs of property (if not providing some afterlife insurance). Parish churches as a later development, with generally unschooled local priests becoming another control mechanism.

Tax systems - Romans maintained a land tax, which permitted feeding cities and keeping huge standing armies. Few other systems could pull this off. Kings started giving away land to nobles; which was tricky business given the finite supply.

Some strong centralized kingdoms developed, especially Charlemagne. But then devolves into local powers over time. Who become increasingly adept at limiting the freedom of peasants, skimming off more of their work time and production. Castles start appearing . . . feudalism in the offing. With weaker kings, stronger local nobility.

Pilgrimage sites as big business - wise investment to come up with a bunch of relics.

He also threw in some information about Scandinavia, Russia, Bulgaria, etc. - much later developing.

The Management Myth - Why the Experts Keep Getting it Wrong (Matthew Stewart, 2009)

Very unusual subject matter for me, as I make a point of not reading business books.

I found it highly interesting and probably quite useful, though I don't really know enough about the subject to put the author's views in context.

He did think that studying philosophy and history is better preparation for business than going to business school - so I was instantly inclined to agree with whatever else he wrote.

The author intersperses anecdotes about his education and his forays into the business consulting world with observations about the history of business schools. Names I've heard but know nothing about - Frederick Taylor, Elton Mayo (and the famous Western Electric study) - basically pointing out how these folks sought to imbue business theory with a scientific precision, when actually doing nothing of the sort.

The business school elites were only too happy to play along - otherwise how to legitimize their very new (and unproven) schools being promoted at some of the most famous Eastern universities?

Stewart discusses why all this may be worse than just nonsense - folks like Taylor (he of the pig iron loading study) emphasized the separation of management from labor and the view of laborers as inputs, not to mention the faux science.

He has lots of fun skewering the recent pop psychology business writers - the Jim Peters types. They somehow pass off cliches and truisms as wisdom, and are paid handsomely for doing so.

Also highly entertaining: his descriptions of the management approach (and oddities) in his consulting firm. Plenty of that was reminiscent of the management issues in the professional service firms in which I've worked.

Very much worthwhile.

Old Goriot (Honore de Balzac, 1835)

I like Balzac's writing. Though this one, not quite so well as Cousin Bette or Lost Illusions.

Old Goriot is another part of "La Comédie humaine"(as were the novels mentioned above). One of the first where the "recurring characters" conceit is developed.

In this one, a successful merchant gives all to his two daughters - each accomplishes an upscale marriage greased by lots of his cash; each promptly forgets his kindnesses and is mostly embarrassed by having him around. And Old Goriot didn't have enough cash to live comfortably at all, though he never stopped adoring his daughters.

So Goriot lives in a boarding house with the protagonist, Eugène de Rastignac. Rastignac is from the provinces; many nice qualities; but overcome with the urge to climb socially. (So he reminds of Lucien Chardon from Lost Illusions.) The boarding house also features a criminal-in-hiding.

This book is set during the Bourbon restoration.

Wikipedia says it is considered the "essential" Balzac novel, that it was highly influential, etc.

Avatar (December 27, 2009)

All seven of us attended, with Pat Herrera. My first movie in a theater for about a year and a half (last saw Wall-E).

I bought into the movie from the beginning, and really liked it.

We saw the IMAX 3-D version, and it was captivating. I just liked looking around the screens. The critics who comment that James Cameron bridged the gap between live action and CGI, are correct, it's almost seamless.

I also liked the lead actors.

I also can see the points made by various critics who found the story line unoriginal, plus found other things to pick at. Including a cartoonish military guy and some lame dialogue moments. The movie had elements of Apocalypse Now, Heart of Darkness, Braveheart, Independence Day, Lord of the Rings. And I guess Dances with Wolves, which I've never seen.

But in the end I was a big fan. Grateful for movie makers who try to do something new. Even if demonstrably imperfect, so much more going on than the pedestrian TV junk with which I'm bombarded regularly.

Sea of Faith - Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean World (Stephen O'Shea, 2006)

This was a very helpful follow-up to related books described here and here and here and here.

O'Shea builds the story around seven key battles involving Christianity and Islam around the Mediterranean during the middle ages.

Poiters in 732 (only 110 years after the hejira).

Baghdad was a new city in 762 - supplanting Damascus.

Spain is really complex - interaction between Islam, Christianity, Jews; always a bit geographically removed.

"Horns of Hattin" - effectively ending Crusader states in 1187.

And Constantinople "falls" in 1453.

Plain Tales from the Hills (Rudyard Kipling, 1888)

As with The Light That Failed, I read this as a result of working through Kipling's biography.

This book includes a series of short stories that were published in some British newspaper that served the expat community in the 1880s. Kipling was widely praised for his originality; had a good feel for the interaction between the communities based on residing there as a child.

Entertaining. But I didn't find this terribly interesting either. Quit about a quarter of the way through.

Stanley - The Impossible Life of Africa's Greatest Explorer (Tim Jeal, 2007)

I had read Jeal's biography of David Livingstone (summarized here), so was quite interested in reading this biography. And was surprised to find it even more enjoyable. The subtitle ("Impossible Life of Africa's Greatest Explorer") sounds quite hyped but ends up seeming to be pretty accurate on both counts.

Stanley was Welsh; pretty much abandoned by family; spent years in a workhouse; took a chance on working a ship to the United States; spent some time in New Orleans; somehow got involved in the Civil War (fought at Shiloh); deserted; ended up in the Navy somehow; on and on. One point of comparison to Livingston - Stanley also had a background from which almost no one emerged into prominence. The author contends this led to insecurities which accounted for behaviors which harmed Stanley's reputation (sounds simplistic but makes some sense when it's all laid out).

Ended up as a newspaperman in the midwest, then took the job with the New York Herald; had developed the idea of an expedition to "find" Livingstone - though often there was doubt that he was "lost." Somehow obtained funding and succeeded - with very limited background for this kind of thing - and struck up a close relationship with Livingstone. Supposedly he never said "Dr. Livingstone, I presume" - the author think he put this in his journals/letters because he thought it sounded "right."

Not very popular in England despite his achievements - in part because they thought he was American, and certainly he wasn't of the correct class. Wanted back in Africa, best available route was working with King Leopold of Belgium. Leopold fooled pretty much everyone, but Stanley was tarred with responsibility for the atrocities in connection with rubber gathering, etc. He was competing with French explorers, though this was prior to the "Scramble."

He made one final unbelievable journey in support of Emin Pasha. Who also wasn't sure he wanted any help.

He married late in life; sounds like this worked out ok, though his wife wouldn't let him return to Africa and he didn't care for hanging around in England. They eventually adopted a boy.

The Light That Failed (Rudyard Kipling, 1890)

I was interested in reading this after working through this biography of Kipling.

Per the biography, the knock on Kipling was that his short stories were amusing and clever, but he never really could pull off a full-length novel. This book was one of his first attempts to do so - and it is a dud. I wouldn't have read all the way through except for the interest in Kipling generated by the biography.

It really does track his boyhood experience in a foster home in the early stages. Uses an artist instead of a writer to stand in for Kipling. All the jolly good banter among the boys is represented.

I dog-ear pages when something strikes me as memorable or interesting. No dog-eared pages in this one.

A History of Histories (John Burrow, 2007)

Talk about ambitious - this author tries to cover just what the title states - he reviews historians (and history as a discipline) starting from ancient times. Covers Herodotus and Thucydides early on. Spends quite a bit of time on Roman historians.

It was interesting how much these writers thought about the rise and fall of the great powers. Polybius saw a cycle of kingship into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, democracy into mob rule; almost considered inevitable.

Also interesting how the writers even then lamented how things had been so much better back in the old days.

Josephus wrote about things Jewish though he had crossed over to assist the Romans. Detail about Palestine and yes, zealots in the area.

Then onto Christian historians, many of whom were interested in teaching. Into Renaissance, etc. Detours where politics (always) and nationalistic considerations (later) influenced the writing of history.

The latter parts of the book were difficult to follow - far more historians, many more threads.

The Man Who Would Be King - The First American in Afghanistan (Ben Macintyre, 2004)

This book seemed interesting as backdrop to the continuing adventures of the U.S. in Afghanistan, and fit into other books about the region I've been reading.

Some American named Josiah Harlan headed for Central Asia in 1822 or thereabouts. After knocking around in a few British outposts, he somehow had the idea of emulating Alexander the Great, or at least finding wealth, fame and perhaps a kingdom in the area of Afghanistan. Somehow he made it work, all the way to being named a prince of an area known as Ghor.

This was in the early days of adventuring in the region; the British were developing interests in the area, and developing concerns with Russian intervention (this contest later to be known as the "Great Game").

Somehow Harlan gained trust and familiarity with key figures; was involved in rebellion; easily switched sides; mixed with leading figures in Kabul; eventually was eased out of the country by the British.

The book recounts the British disaster in 1842; they underestimated the Afghans. But then again Alexander the Great and the Soviets had troubles in this area also. The painting at bottom shows the remainder of the British army returning to Jalalabad.

The British would have been better served with Harlan's philosophy: gain some trust, or at least heavily bribe, the local chieftains.

Rudyard Kipling wrote a famous novel based on Harlan, named "The Man Who Would Be King." I hadn't known that Sean Connery starred in the movie version.

Harlan himself came back to the U.S.; (tried to) fight in the Civil War; (tried to) introduce camels into the southwest U.S. Interesting fellow.

Vanity Fair (William Makepeace Thackery, 1848)

After reading (a bit over half of) The Pilgrim's Progress, it seemed likely that Vanity Fair was going to be more interesting. And it was.

I wasn't sure what to make of this book, but I certainly enjoyed reading it. Could have been compressed without losing much, I think (700 pages). But I was in no particular hurry, and like a long movie, it permits more acquaintance with the characters and more development of the plot. Definitely reminded of Balzac and Dickens. Like so many of the novelists, he sees us and is able to describe us.

Like Dickens (and others), this was published in serial form. This one from 1847-1848. So it was an interesting period in history, with revolution across Europe.

Becky Sharp is a very original character. The first few pages - where she leaves the finishing school - are very well done. She says that she could have been an honest woman for 5000 (pounds, I suppose) a year - which is a pretty perceptive comment. And it builds from there. Amelia is a bit of a twit; Dobbins is a fine character; Jos Sedley is a dork; Rawley Crawdon and the entire Crawdon clan; the dashing George Osborn; chasing the aunt's inheritance; O'Dowd and the regiment; the principality of Pumpernickel (Thackery spent some time in Weimar with Goethe); on and on it goes. Thackeray famously describes this as a novel without a hero, but I don't know that I entirely agree.

Edith Wharton must have had Becky Sharp in mind when writing about Undine Spragg (Custom of the Country).

Thackery's take on Waterloo was interesting. His drawings added a lot.