Holy Madness - Romantics, Patriots and Revolutionaries, 1776-1876 (Adam Zamoyski, 1999)

I was reading this at the gym while simultaneously working through the Barzun book. They overlapped in interesting ways. I had never heard of the author until reading his biography of Napoleon earlier this year - his stuff makes for good reading.

And this book gives some highly useful insights into all the blather and phoniness surrounding what our politicians would pass off as "patriotism" or "nationalism." Like identity politics, celebrating and emphasizing differences just doesn't make much sense.

In this book he examines a century of high-minded efforts (or at least involving high-flown rhetoric) to throw off kings, emperors, church leaders, whoever - often in the name of some would-be national group or the other.

He discusses the American Revolution at the outset - essentially a transition from one leadership structure to another without much disturbance of the society. But as we saw in the last presidential election, when words like "freedom" and "change" and the like start getting thrown around by skilled orators, folks around the world can fill in the blanks however they like - and find inspiration and justification to proceed.

Lots of details about revolutionaries in France, Italy, Poland; Russia; Belgium; etc. The French experience was the key - they marketed the ideals of the revolution all across Europe. Their huge armies picked up conscripts from all over, and traveled all over. This altered the outlook of some many folks so dramatically that all sorts of change happened.

The author discusses how a small group of revolutionaries would show up in disturbance after revolt after war all around Europe and South America. Only to typically find that the group of people ("nation") or whatever that they intended to lead to "freedom" wasn't even interested in the disturbance.

Metternich's "system" after Waterloo to preserve order. Russian "Decembrists" in 1825. Outbreaks in 1830 in various locales. Another round of outbreaks in 1848 - starting with high hopes, ending with minimal change. France increasingly conservative under Louis Philippe and Napoleon III. The "commune" following the defeat by Prussia.

Interesting to observe the scramble of the "nations" to discover - or more typically invent - their national heritage and customs. Then members of sub-groups intended to comprise so-called "nations" found out they had significant differences and aims - oops.

Scotland adopts the "kilt" in 18th century - named and sold by English. Germany reaching back to Tacitus, seeking martial honor in the deep forest tradition (rather than per the decadent French). Almost every group designated someone as its "Washington" or "Lafayette."

Famous artists showing up here and there - Wagner, Liszt, Stendhal, Hugo. Beethoven ("Eroica" for Napoleon).

How all things Greek became wildly popular around 1830 or so - Europeans rush to liberate Greeks from the Turks, only to find that the classical imagery (Achilles et al) didn't quite match the locals. Lord Byron. Now everyone needed to learn Greek in school.

Louis Kossuth in Hungary (very popular in US at time Kossuth County, Iowa was named).

Behaviors and symbols borrowed liberally from the religions it was fashionable to despise.

At the end of the book, the author notes the disillusionment of these high-minded revolutionaries, and states that this led to the cold-blooded approach of Lenin and his ilk - if the people didn't want regime change, they would be taught to want it (or else).

From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present : 500 Years of Western Cultural Life (Jacques Barzun, 2000)

How useful did I find this book? I actually went out and bought a hardcover copy for myself. (My usual approach is to borrow books from the library; I have a list of those I want to own, but too seldom find the motivation to start purchasing. Not the case here.)

The value proposition for Barzun's work is simple in my case. I read as much as I can; I also try to learn about as much classical music as possible, and (to a much lesser extent) art (typically meaning paintings). Opera and "plays" remain mostly mysteries to me. On all fronts, I don't have a very organized way of identifying items I'll read or view. On top of that, I have trouble remembering what I've read or seen.

Enter Barzun.

He is a fascinating character in his own right. He was class valedictorian at Columbia in 1927 (born in France, the book includes his recollection of Paris being shelled by "Big Bertha" German gunnery). He finished this book when he was well over 90 years old. By that time, he had spent what - seven decades? - learning, teaching, writing at a very high level. It's hard to imagine the insights that would accumulate in that setting over that extended period of time - and that he would have the energy so late in life to put together a volume like this.


The book is a delight. Incredibly economical with the language - how else could one even try to take on a 500-year period across multiple disciplines in one book of manageable size? I slowed down and read pretty much every word, often working backward in the book. (This approach (along with a too-busy work schedule for the first half of 2010) is reflected in the slowed pace of my reading recently.)

Just an example - he spent about six pages working around World War I - and left me with an entirely different sense of how the world was affected (i.e. the changed outlook for those who survived). Most of my WWI reading has focused on particular battles, the experience of the soldiers, how the war started, etc. This was different.

He uses the term "decadence" to describe the current state of affairs - but not in as gloomy a sense as the word might suggest. Very cogent observations about the effect of the welfare state (which he (like many others) traces to 1870s Prussia), the media, etc.

I will refer to this regularly. I need to read more of his stuff.

The Vertigo Years - Europe, 1900-1914 (Philipp Blom, 2008)

Another great history read.

The author was trying to put a different interpretation on the pre-war years - he is concerned that the period is characterized as a quiet "summer" before the war started, or is simply overshadowed as a lead-in period to the more important years of actual armed conflict.

Blom shows that the period in fact was anything but serene - marked by rapid change that wasn't giving folks a sense of where things might be headed - hence a feeling of "vertigo."

He devotes one chapter to each of the fourteen years. Starting with the famed Paris exposition and the continuing ascent of machines (as recounted by Henry Adams in this book). Discussion of France's decline - lower population growth than Germany, Dreyfus affair, loss of Alsace/Lorraine in 1870 (propagandized to school children thereafter) - was the country losing its virility? Roger Casement's success in the Congo (and later flirtation with Germany). The rise of Japan - Russia's loss in 1905. Women's rights, changing roles. Progress in the sciences - but creating more questions than the hoped-for certainty. Eugenics? Freud. Increasing frequency of mental illness of various kinds. Cities. Speed: automobiles (15mph!), early airplanes. Department stores, consumerism for the masses.

Educated folks who would laugh at religion join pseudo-mystical societies - with similar rituals.

Still not sure what Virginia Woolf meant when she said human nature changed in December 1910 - including reference to the cook's hat.

Jacques Barzun's work on cultural history goes into quite a bit of detail, and provides some more context around the topics discussed by Blom; I'll post on it when finished. Many overlapping concepts, which helps this make some sense.

Up In The Air

We saw this at Camelview - rather by accident, as we had gone there to see a different movie (I don't recall which) and the projector wasn't working. Found this surprisingly enjoyable - George Clooney did a good job as someone who flies around constantly firing people; then he is more or less grounded as his employer introduces video technology. Things start changing for the protagonist at that point, I was surprised by the direction things went.

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.