In Spite of the Gods - The Strange Rise of Modern India (Edward Luce, 2007)

(356 pp)

Author was South Asia bureau chief for the Financial Times (something I've never seen) between 2001 and 2006; he married into an Indian family.  The book is described as a helpful introduction for a "generalist" reader - which seems accurate - very accessible.  How accurate are the author's viewpoints?  I don't really know, but he seems rather measured in what he says.

Talks a lot about problems, but overall seems quite "taken" with India, and optimistic on balance.

Includes some discussion of "the present" i.e. the few years prior to publication in 2007 - useful though these parts of course have more of a shelf life.

Lots to digest; here are a few areas where I think I learned a little more (not in order of importance):

1.  I keep seeing references to "corruption" in Indian politics - the author certainly sees plenty - in some ways reminding of the way the US fritters government revenues, except the percentage being diverted seems quite a bit higher, and the needs are greater (so the waste hurts more).  Agriculture programs hijacked for benefit of a few big farmers (like US).

2.  Government jobs viewed as highly desirable; temptations when obtain them.

3.  Formation of voting coalitions - issues like caste and religion.  Politicians chase votes and emphasize divisions (caste and religion)  . . . the identity politics are somewhat reminiscent of US . . . Brits encouraged the differences (intentionally and otherwise) way back when but Congress party pursued more of a "unity" viewpoint.  Historically a significant amount of blurring occurred between say Hindu/Muslim notwithstanding the tensions; but author sees this as breaking down, cites as an example that in recent years Muslims becoming more likely to wear "Muslim" clothes at all times, not (for example) saris . . . identity politics do create unnecessary divisions, just like here.  Ugh.

4.  Caste - too complex for me to understand - author thinks it is somewhat weakening in cities, especially in the south; quite strong elsewhere.  Reserved jobs for Other Backward Classes, etc.  Need to learn more about this.

5.  Religious personal law continues alongside civil law (Islamic triple taliq in the news recently) - how to create commonality if this continues?  A 1947 compromise that will be hard to change.

6.  Hindu nationalism rising when this was written; BJP not in power when book published, but is now (Ram Temple symbolic like Trump's border wall perhaps?)  This seems really complicated, perhaps (hopefully?) it's more about chasing votes than actually implementing policy? State level politics very important, coalitions differ from national level.

7.  Background information on the License Raj, 1991 dismantling, etc.  The economy has responded; still lots of (too much) regulatory overlay.  Courts super-slow.

8.  Government workers essentially unfireable - worse even than in the US (which is saying a lot) - discouraging, this is a huge problem with so many governments.  Apparently private workers have similar protections in India - which sounds appealing - until you realize this discourages employers from hiring folks at all (too risky if they can't be fired).

9.  Continuing political emphasis on villages - yet might be like rural Iowa in the end, a dead-end?  Don't know.

10.  Advances in south India (Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu) - which makes sense for several reasons - I had always assumed more action in the north since that's where the Brits (and Mughuls) seems to concentrate, and where the more familiar cities are located.  Wrong again.

11.  Partition; relationship with Pakistan.

12.  China!

The Brain Defense - Murder in Manhattan and the Dawn of Neuroscience in America's Courtrooms (Kevin Davis, 2017)

(295 pp)

Book club selection (via Nick; session held 28 August 2017).

Title is pretty descriptive of content - author looks initially at the Weinstein case - seemingly aberrant behavior, defendant has a very large tumor, evidence of this is ruled admissible in part.  Discussion about (questionable) evidentiary value of the neuroscience, and the cottage industry that has grown up involving expert witnesses and defense lawyers.

What to do if the judge or jury is convinced that the defendant cannot control his/her behavior because of brain issues?  Much of this is playing out in a binary setting (guilty or not) that doesn't accommodate nuance.

Author pursues perhaps too many major threads here - juveniles, veterans, NFL players, etc.  The purpose of sentencing - rehabilitation, deterrence, etc.

At book's end, author provides what seems a useful summary - very cautionary about probative value, he concludes we know something but not enough.  So continued reliance on normal evidence seems wise!

More generally - this brings to mind the problematic invocation of "science" to support desired judicial outcomes, broad policy preferences, etc. - this problem seems worse than ever.

The book triggered more discussion than usual, which is good.

Paris 1919 - Six Months That Changed The World (Margaret MacMillan, 2001)

(624 pages)

Interesting and useful review of the Paris peace conference following World War I.  Many, many threads that lead to conflicts in the run-up to WW2 and in numerous cases thereafter.  Easy to criticize what happened here, but the book gives a good idea of the difficulties the participants faced.

Of all the ideas - the main thought for me - and one that strikes me more strongly than ever - the profound perniciousness of Wilson's ballyhooed notion of "self-determination" as promoted in his "Fourteen Points."  Plenty of folks recognized the danger even then.  What did it ever mean?  That any group that can somehow identify as ethnic, or "a people" - should get its own territorial state?  That any such majority in a given territory decides (and too bad for the minority)?  The concept was hopeless yet stirred up nationalist/ethnic hopes - and hatreds - around the world.  Of course not the only contributing factor to this trend - but I think a major one.

[A thought experiment (if off-topic a bit):  had the war affected US territories - should Arizona and California be returned to Mexico? to Spain?  to Native Americans?  Take a vote based on whoever currently resided there?  Include folks who had been relocated out?  Etc.]

Far better if politicians had devoted their energies to exhorting citizens to accept territorial designations, and then get along with each other within them.  That would have left plenty enough problems to work out - but would have set a better tone than the nationalist/ethnic battling and cleansing that rather naturally followed throughout the balance of the 20th century (and to this day).  One example among so many:  sounds like the Kurds had never thought of themselves as a people, or wanting a territory - until 1919; remains an issue in 2017.

A classic example of territorial confusion:  how to handle a situation like Poland?  What about the Balkans?  Way too much movement of way too many peoples over way too many centuries for "self-determination" to have any practical use as a guiding principle.  A political slogan for which anyone could fill in the desired meaning (see "sustainability," "diversity," "New Deal", "Fair Deal", "Hope and Change," "MAGA" etc.)

By coincidence, today I saw that yet another paper on this theme was recently published, per this link.  Wilson's slogan, and mischief, not likely to be undone.

The second major thought - the overwhelming difficulties facing the big three negotiators (or four, given that Italy was a token presence).  Setting borders around the world - literally.  With only so much knowledge.  And only so much time (the big three had pretty demanding day jobs!)  And domestic political constraints.  And exhausted victor countries/lack of resources to enforce anything.  Hard enough in western Europe - but consider eastern and central Europe; the Middle East; Africa; Balkans - impossible complexity, few good answers.  US had some resources but withdrew from the stage.

Wilson always seems profoundly annoying - the archetype progressive - an arrogant know-it-all, busy-body, telling everyone else how they should behave.

German provisions harsh; if not a major cause of the events leading up to WW2, the treaty certainly provided a major excuse/talking point for Hitler-types.

So many decisions that reverberate in international disputes to this day.

Hopi - Susanne & Jake Page (1982)

(224 pp)

This had been recommended by Joseph Day (he and his Hope wife run a shop on Second Mesa, discussed here).

Hopi are famously reluctant about allowing photos etc.  This book-project was unusual - undertaken in late 1970s (with initial publication date in 1982) - they explain that the tribe was amenable in part because a book about the Navajo had been well-received a few years earlier.  So I think it was a bit of a PR project.

But nothing similar has since been permitted, so this one is particularly worthwhile.

Interesting discussions of internal politics within Hopi as this existed at that time (no doubt somewhat similar now).  Great photography.  The dances (social and religious).  Hadn't realized the importance of eaglets.  Discussion of spirituality, or spirit world.  How the San Francisco Peaks and other key areas fit into the origin narrative and current locations.  Transition in white man world.  Interactions with Navajo, ongoing border issues.

Incredible continuity over so many centuries.

It's all rather amazing - and centered just a few miles N/NE of here.

The Sorrows of Young Werther (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1774)

(110 pp)

Book club selection (via me; session held 23 July 2017).

Last read in 2009; my summary from back then still works well enough.

Biography of Goethe summarized here.

Discussion at session useful/interesting - partly as we wrestle with understanding blockbuster status when initially published.

Held the session at CPG house due to air conditioner failure(s) at ours.  PJ with some good cooking, including Grandma's peach pie.

Napoleon - A Life (Andrew Roberts, 2014)

(810 pages)

Napoleon's story line is pretty familiar by now . . . pops up in so many books/contexts . . . but this author had access to more of his letters than previous biographers - 33,000 letters in total . . . so it seemed like a good idea to re-up.  And it was - this bio is readable, useful.

After reading all those letters - the author was generally sympathetic to Napoleon.

I have the impression that the "great man" [person] theory of history is pretty much out of fashion, and I'd think for good reason.  Still - if any one person can be said to have moved the needle - Napoleon is a pretty good candidate.  Amazing accomplishments across a broad range of topics at a very young age.  Everyone is reacting to him across all of Europe for many decades - politics, military, legal, arts.  (Interesting that Tolstoy was sufficiently moved by Napoleon to include as a central theme of this novel a refutation of "great man" theory.)

A few thoughts:

1.  Only in the chaos resulting from the Revolution could someone like this advance so rapidly.  (Not a criticism - he dealt with the circumstances as they existed.)

2.  In his youth - into adulthood - he read high quality books incessantly.  Viewed this as the best possible preparation.  Agreed!

3.  Of course ambitious - very much so - wanted to be remembered like Alexander or Caesar.

4.  Yet able to connect with common soldiers; really with pretty much anyone - including British jailers - generally a good listener, able to absorb competing viewpoints and modify his own.

5.  Author cites some major blind spots - economics (believed the Continental System would work); naval operations; putting his brothers in charge of key tasks; obsessed with Britain.

6.  Biggest blind spot in my view - perhaps willful - pursuing policies/campaigns that resulted in the deaths of so many soldiers.  And exhausted France.  There had to be a better way.  The "ambition" problem.

7.  Military genius - seems definitely yes - innovator; though he fared less well as opponents adopted his innovations.  Stories of the famous battles.  Perceptive, decisive, personally brave.

8.  Must have been an all-around genius - not just military.  Rapid-fire and on-target decision-making in an astonishing array of subjects.  Could handle both big picture and details - rare.  Prolific letter writer - how things got done.

9.  "Enlightenment on horseback" - gets back to Paris after initial wars, implements Code Napoleon - the truly lasting contribution; influence throughout Europe.

10.  Information on Elba and St. Helena largely new to me.

Napoleon impresses, mightily.

The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (Barbara Tuchman, 1966)

(531 pages)

Unusual structure -Tuchman provides eight lengthy essays on various topics affecting England, France, Germany, Russia and the US in the two decades leading up to World War I.  The essays are related but not all that closely connected.  She writes really well.  I'd highly recommend.

Partly because - in addition to giving all kinds of perspective on that era - so much resonates with today.  Concerns about expanding the franchise - what would happen with additional voters, many less interested or informed than the limited group previously able to vote - will they vote themselves unaffordable benefits, fall for demagoguery, etc.?  Violence from the left, justified in various ways.

She doesn't believe - and shows - that the prewar "Le Belle Epoque" was nearly as great, or orderly, as nostalgia later recalled it.  So many making the exact error today when looking back at the 1950s.

The eight essays:

"The Patricians" - upper-crust England faces changes.

"The Idea and the Deed" - very good background on Anarchism - no interest in government; Proudhon, Bakunin; bomb-throwing (with consequences discussed at length in this book for the Balkans, also in this book for Russia; Joseph Conrad's excellent novel version here).  Gave me a little idea of where these folks fit in.

"End of a Dream" - the US builds up its navy, goes into Cuba and the Philippines - over the strong objection of those who felt this betrayed founding principles.  This is where Puerto Rico became ensnared.  Isolationism wasn't dead, but severely chipped away at - unfortunately.  I didn't know much about this story line.

"Give Me Combat" - France coping with the Dreyfus affair - added a lot of useful context to items recently read - more detail on the effect on French society.  Trump Derangement Syndrome resonates.  Multiple newspapers and viewpoints - unabashedly partisan - seems better than today's fake veneer of objectivity.

"The Steady Drummer" - discussion of Hague peace conferences.  Genuine fears emerging of mechanized warfare.  But the nations don't change course.

"Neroism is in the Air" - much discussion about German culture, primarily through Richard Strauss - also Nietzsche; a tale of rising militarism.  German intellectuals withdrawal tracing to 1848 failures and disappointments.

"Transfer of Power" - discussion of a topic I've wondered about - what process transitioned from aristocrats to more "modern" politics and parties?  Labour didn't exist as a party - Liberals prevail in 1906 with a few Labour seats; Liberal party on its way to oblivion.  More voters.  More literacy - more involvement - more perceived to be at stake - voters understanding that they can vote stuff for themselves.  Liberal disenchantment/disillusionment with Democracy, Enlightenment-style progress.  Rise of the mob.  Myth of rational voter.  The "transfer of power" in England, "not a mere political transfer from the in-party to the outs but one more profound, to a new class."

"The Death of Jaurès," - discussion of the birth of socialism - the splits among those expecting capitalism to fail (Marxian prediction) and those wanting to participate in the government and pursue changes via that route.

Everything Flows (Vasily Grossman; unfinished; last worked on in 1964)

(208 pp)

Book club selection (via PJ; session held 25 June, 2017).

Another book that held up really well on second reading; see discussion from first reading here.  Also a good book club selection, interesting conversation as these topics remain relevant.

An Officer and a Spy (Robert Harris, 2013)

(425 pp)

Book club selection (via PJr; session held 14 May, 2017).

Book held up well on second reading; see discussion here.  Also a good book club selection.  Plus the beer selection was good, also chicken divan.

An Era of Darkness - The British Empire in India (Shashi Tharoor, 2016)

(291 pp)

The author argued during a speech at Oxford in 2015 that the British domination of India was deeply negative for India in pretty much every way.  The lecture ended up becoming very popular online - reportedly rapidly exceeding three million views on one site - and is now revised into book form.  Pretty clearly it struck a chord.  I know almost nothing of Indian politics but it sounds like a nationalist strain has emerged there in recent years (not equating this with nationalist strains elsewhere as I don't know if/how comparable) (Modi).

My untutored impression of the matter has always been that yes of course the Brits took advantage of the situation in India in various ways, and generally acted as racists - but that's sort of how things were done back then.  And I also have a vague impression that the Brits also were looking out for the Indians in many respects and seeking to make things better.  White man's burden sort of thing, I suppose.

This author makes a pretty compelling case that his viewpoint is more accurate (Brit influence almost entirely negative).

A few thoughts:

1.  Author makes interesting comparisons between India and England at the time of England's entry into east India - including India's relative economic strength, its long history compared to England's - and then offers comparisons between the two as a couple centuries roll by - with England consistently drawing off resources and interfering with whatever might have been the ordinary course of Indian economic development.  I don't know if the author's data is accurate or useful, but it's thought-provoking for sure.  Of course we don't exactly know how India would have developed with less or no interference - but its performance in the 21st century suggests it would have worked its way forward just fine.

2.  India paying for its own exploitation - essentially billed for all costs of running the country, etc.

3.  So many Englishmen making their fortunes in India.  This seems telling.

4.  Especially after the 1857 rising (or mutiny, as Brits would call it) - divide and conquer became a more conscious policy - emphasizing differences especially as between Hindu and Muslim (but also Sikh etc.).  Of course there were plenty of divisions independent of the Brit influence (including caste), but it's hard to believe that the situation wasn't antagonized; let alone the uncontrollable run-up that led to the Partition.

5.  Terrible famines.  Though not since Brits left.

6.  Brit's widespread presence and control not the result of a long-term strategic plan.  A business sets about making profit in a risky new market in 18th century, and learns how to take control of territories in support of the business plan.  Then the perimeter of the territory needs to be controlled, as well as the perimeter of the perimeter - the usual expansion rationale.  Then the crown takes over from the business after 1857.  One thing leads to the next in terms of territorial control, economic measures, etc.

7.  Assuming Brit influence was consistently malign - why didn't India rise up?  I think the explanation I usually see makes sense - that the Brits could tip the balance in various power struggles at the early stages and then - once in place - pick off control of additional states/territories by essentially cutting deals with the leadership.  Author argues this was pretty lucrative for the Brits and for the compliant local leaders, pretty negative for everyone else.

[Interesting that places like Peru and Mexico had similar experiences - an opening appears when the ruling party in disarray, rivals are rising, and a small force with advanced weaponry - and yes, no small measure of courage and/or greed - can then tip the balance and obtain outsized influence.]

Interesting throughout.  The author doesn't duck a fundamental question - the "so what" - even if Brit influence was deeply negative, India has been independent since 1947 and has adopted plenty of not-optimal policies in its own right - why burn energy looking back?  I think the usual answer applies - foundation myths are powerful in any country, and must be viewed critically if/as countries seek to move forward.

The Millionaire and the Bard - Henry Folger's Obsessive Hunt for Shakespeare's First Folio (Andrea Mays, 2015)

(281 pages)

Surprisingly similar to this just-read book.  In both cases the author tries to make a book-length story out of something that should be much shorter.  And the stories are somewhat similar - seeking earliest copies of some of the most famous, and best, literature in the world.  With way too much time spent on the details of the chase - when more information about the historical setting would have been far more useful.

The Quaritch book store in London (which I'd never heard of previously) even figures in both stories.

Henry Folger made his money as a senior executive with John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil companies.  Somehow he got the collecting bug - but unlike many wealthy collectors in those days, he specialized.  And ended up with a colossal haul of Shakespeare materials.

The most interesting part was the explanation about why Shakespeare himself hadn't bothered putting the works into formal written format; the source materials that the two compilers - both knew Shakespeare well - could have worked from in coming up with the First Folio.  The printing process.  Paper was expensive!  Shakespeare not so widely known for some time, then becomes much more recognized as 18th century passes.  Samuel Johnson a big fan.

Biographical information on Folger, of course, including details about his disposition of the collection.  Mrs. Folger a key player throughout.

Now I need to visit the Folger Shakespeare Library.

Guard of Honor (James Gould Cozzens, 1948)

(631 pp)

Saw a couple highly favorable references so thought I'd give it a try.  I liked it.

Won Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1948.

Story takes places over three days; almost all of the action takes place at a fictional Florida base for the Army Air Forces (I think this preceded a separate Air Force?)  Quite a few characters, but focus on just a few and the character development is strong.

Beyond just the story-telling, I think this is useful in giving a glimpse of how the military might have felt on a domestic base in 1942 (in that respect sometimes made me think of this excellent novel); the way that career Army fellows interacted with one another (with the combat vets in particular bonded closely); the contrasting way that civilian types in the Army operated as among themselves and with the career guys - effective, respected, but just not as closely tied in.  Early 1940s army was full of draftees or enlistees - in this respect the story line mostly involves professional public relations and media types (which I learned was the author's role in the war).  Glimpses of the unwritten rules among the military types as they cope with issues and decisions.

"Bus" Beal is the general in charge - correctly views himself as a "flyboy" - never to be an all-star administrative-general type, but also the kind of person that is needed to win wars.  Most of the story line involves Captain Hicks and Colonel Ross - civilians.  Issues arise at a Florida base when a contingent of Negro flyers and support folks arrive, with Washington DC intending that this will become a showcase unit.

Amanda Turck.  Beal's wing-man - Benny Carricker.  Mrs. Ross; Mrs. Beal; Lippa; Captain Wiley (Southerner with combat experience); Jo Jo Nichols; Colonel Mowbray; etc.

The Lost Book of Moses - The Hunt for the World's Oldest Bible (Chanan Tigay, 2016)

Entertaining and useful - but for my taste, way longer than it needed to be. (332 pages)

Book focuses on Moses Wilhelm Shapira, who in 1883 showed up in London with what he claimed was the world's oldest Bible scroll.  Rejected as a fraud - but when the Dead Sea Scrolls are found some 70 years later, the authenticity issue is reopened.  But by then no one knows where Shapira's scrolls ended up.

Shapira as an unlikely antiquities vendor - based in Jerusalem in second half of 19th century.  Problems with his sales of Moabite pottery.  His shop in the old city is a mecca for tourists - tourism being rather a new idea in Jerusalem in those days.

The author gets into long discussions of his detective work in trying to track down the scrolls - well-written, clever - but really who cares?  (I guess it did give some insight into how these artifacts - accumulated starting in 19th century - end up more or less lost or findable, as the case may be, in museum boxes - the fate of so much stuff, apparently.)

An interesting angle:  the discussions, if short, about the history of the Bible - Shapira's heyday overlaps with the first scholarly analysis of the development of the Old Testament.  Interesting to think that, until this time, so much rock-solid belief that e.g. the 10 Commandments were written on tablets by finger of God, etc.  Religion changes a lot if one considers that the foundational texts might be affected by the hand of man (similar strands with Mormon texts, also Islam).

Jerusalem's history so interesting - like so much of that part of the world, conquerors sweep through from time to time over the millennia - so in that sense, lots of conflict.  But when Shapira is active - 19th century - Jerusalem is coming off a period of relative neglect - no sign of the three-way fight among Christians, Jews, Islam that - here in 21st century - one would assume has been going on for centuries.  But to get started on that topic, I'd recommend this book.

The Fixer (Bernard Malamud, 1966)

A ne'er-do-well "fixer" (someone who makes a living, sort of, as a handyman or doing small repairs) reluctantly moves from the shtetl - embarrassed that wife left him, looking for change - to Kiev.  Early 20th century.  Fixer uneducated but finds an interest in reading, picks up quite a bit of learning here and there (Spinoza).  Chain of circumstances leads him to reside and work, under a false name, in an area forbidden to Jews.  Christian child is murdered with multiple stab wounds; the fixer is arrested for ritual murder.

Malamud wins Pulitzer Prize for fiction for this novel.  I liked it.  Consistent with discussion of anti-Semitism in Russia as discussed in this review of the Romanov dynasty.  Belief in things like the forged "Protocols" even among the supposedly educated upper classes - in the 20th century.

I read that Malamud considered writing a novel about the Dreyfus affair (novel form here; history focus here) - certainly plenty of overlapping elements - but settled on this instead.  Prejudice, maltreatment in prison, entrenched institutional forces, false witnesses, emerging community support.  (Malamud's novel is based, pretty closely as I understand it, on a true story.)

Author has an interesting way of describing what the protagonist felt while imprisoned for a prolonged period awaiting indictment and trial.  Wife visits him in prison.  Father-in-law (Shmuel).  Conversations with an honest investigator, and later with his lawyer - author uses these as devices to lay out some history on Russian pogroms.

262 pp in this edition.

Incarnations - A History of India in Fifty Lives (Sunil Khilnani, 2016)

The author observes that India is often discussed in terms of groups and areas - that with few exceptions, we hear little about individuals.  So he sets out to write a book consisting entirely of short biographies of 50 individuals that he considers highly important in Indian history.  (Not all are Indian.)

I saw some favorable reviews; also a fair amount of criticism - how do you select the "right" 50? How to properly describe each in a few pages?  No doubt there are flaws.  But for an uninformed reader like me, I think this book is highly useful.  If nothing else it reinforces that India is really large, and really complicated, and has a history that is really long.

Geography, religion, caste, race, distance, language, etc.  "Diverse" doesn't begin to capture it - in some ways it seems almost impossible that India is even a single country (and one that probably should have been formed with Pakistan).

[Was thinking that the U.S. has many of the same potentially divisive factors but also many unifying principles not applicable to India - a far shorter history; everyone arrived as immigrants so expressly or implicitly "signed on" to the American project at some level; everyone learns English (so far); somehow our shared secular religion (in "America" as an idea), or perhaps just all the prosperity, or some combination, seems to override, for the most part, allegiance to particular religions that creates divisions elsewhere.  Etc.]

Not going to try to summarize 50 bios!  Mixture of religious, literary, artistic, political, figures from across the country; I tried to focus on those from the south.

Read the book - good baseline info!

Also:  would enjoy feedback from anyone that knows something about these 50.