What are you currently reading?

[Parsifal]

I wonder how many people are afraid to go to the Dentist after reading that book. The tooth decay that Thomas Mann is responsible for boggles the mind.

[Bogey]

Regarding the cover, any representation of Poirot other than David Suchet seems wrong to me. Delightful book, though.

Truth.  The new Orient Express movie coming out will be interesting.  We'll see if Kenneth Branagh can pull it off, but our entire family loved Suchet in the role. 

[Christo]

Second book - after Faust I and II - I ever read in German; this one proved a little easier.  Promised to read it again with a group of friends for our October meeting. Any thoughts on it?

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Any thoughts on it?

I'm not very far yet - just finished the first part. The very first pages were rather dull in my opinion but after that the quality improved dramatically. So far I think I like the book very much.

[Florestan]

The very first pages were rather dull in my opinion but after that the quality improved dramatically.

My thoughts exactly about The Magic Mountain.

On the contrary, Doktor Faustus's and Lotte in Weimar's first pages gripped me by the neck and did not let go until the end.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Second book - after Faust I and II - I ever read in German;

I think both parts of Faust were the first German works for me as well - (unless one counts opera libretti as well which were the ones I really started with). After Faust, Das Märchen, also from Goethe and then finally I turned to German novels, to both Wilhelm Meister novels, once again (surprise surprise) from Goethe. After that I read some biographies, collection of Goethe's scientific writings, Iphigenia, then finally my first Thomas Mann novel (Royal Highness) and now finally I'm reading Buddenbrooks. As you can see, my knowledge of German literature is rather... shallow. That doesn't mean I am not greatly interested in it, of course.

[Ken B]

I think both parts of Faust were the first German works for me as well - (unless one counts opera libretti as well which were the ones I really started with). After Faust, Das Märchen, also from Goethe and then finally I turned to German novels, to both Wilhelm Meister novels, once again (surprise surprise) from Goethe. After that I read some biographies, collection of Goethe's scientific writings, Iphigenia, then finally my first Thomas Mann novel (Royal Highness) and now finally I'm reading Buddenbrooks. As you can see, my knowledge of German literature is rather... shallow. That doesn't mean I am not greatly interested in it, of course.

I aspire to read Mann in German, especially Venice. I have read some Kafka stories and some Grimm. Right now I am trying Flaubert and Maupassant in French.

[Spineur]

I aspire to read Mann in German, especially Venice. I have read some Kafka stories and some Grimm. Right now I am trying Flaubert and Maupassant in French.

Go for Maupassant short stories.  They are so powerful.  After reading "A vendetta" you will feel like you got a slap in the face: "La claque"

[Ken B]

Go for Maupassant short stories.  They are so powerful.  After reading "A vendetta" you will feel like you got a slap in the face: "La claque"

He's one of my favourite authors. Even in translation. The best short stories in English are the ones Maupassant wrote in French.

I have read almost 200 of the stories in translation, but so far only about 4 or 5 in French.

[André]

La petite Roque is one of my favourites. When you're doomed, you're doomed.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

To clarify: I am not reading Mann (or any German literature) in German but in Finnish and/or English translations. I know a few sentences and words in German from what I've learned from operas but I never would go so far as to say that I can fluently read or speak or understand German. I misread Christo's post.

[kishnevi]

Finished this 'short history of about everything' as long as it's related to the 'center of the world', the Persian regions of Central Asia or the connections between the two centers of global civilization, East Asia and the Middle East, later the West. From about 2000 BC till 2015, a genuine tour de force. Very informative and inspiring in its chapters on antiquity and especially the medieval world, less convincing in modern times (esp. 1800-present), because the theme gets overstretched and would require a different book. Yet: recommended.

I read the first few chapters of this book last night, and frankly Frangopan comes across as a highly politicized, somewhat meretricious writer.

For instance, he blames the movement of nomadic tribes in Central Asia which helped catalyze the "barbarian" invasion and overrunning of the Western Roman Empire on climate change, and only climate change, ignoring all the other factors involved, and totally ignoring the complex connections the "barbarians" had with the Roman Empire to begin with (most importantly, the barbarians were not so barbarian and the invasion was not really an invasion, since many of the "barbarians" served as the core of the Roman army and were already settled in the Empire, or on its borders, long before Rome "fell").   

Second instance: he wants to depicts Islam as tolerant of other faiths.  So having made sure to fully describe Christian persecution of heretics and Zoroastrian persecution of Christians and Buddhists, and inserting the one lone episode of Jewish persecution of Christians (in pre-Islamic Yemen--admittedly, the main reason this was the only example is the fact that this is probably the only instance in history in which Jews were in a position to persecute Christians), he then describes in not quite glowing terms Mohammed's original treaty with the Jews of Medina--and then makes no mention of the expulsion/massacre which Mohammed inflicted on those Jews of Medina several years later.  Then he airbrushes over the Sunni-Shia schism (trying to make it sound like it was simply a political struggle with no religious implications), talks about Islamic rule of non Moslem populations in general terms, and makes no mention of Moslem intolerance other than a reference to the Taliban's destruction of the giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan--and even there he adverts to a Christian parallel, the iconoclastic outbreaks which were sparked by the Protestant Reformation.

A more honest account would acknowledge the contrary evidence and give explanations that would fit into the basic theory.  He just pretends the contrary evidence doesn't exist.


When not trying to overtly push an agenda, he tells an important story, but the tendentious treatment of material on political grounds is a deep structural flaw.  I have not yet returned this to the library, but I doubt I will read further from it.

[Ken B]

I read the first few chapters of this book last night, and frankly Frangopan comes across as a highly politicized, somewhat meretricious writer.

For instance, he blames the movement of nomadic tribes in Central Asia which helped catalyze the "barbarian" invasion and overrunning of the Western Roman Empire on climate change, and only climate change, ignoring all the other factors involved, and totally ignoring the complex connections the "barbarians" had with the Roman Empire to begin with (most importantly, the barbarians were not so barbarian and the invasion was not really an invasion, since many of the "barbarians" served as the core of the Roman army and were already settled in the Empire, or on its borders, long before Rome "fell").   

Second instance: he wants to depicts Islam as tolerant of other faiths.  So having made sure to fully describe Christian persecution of heretics and Zoroastrian persecution of Christians and Buddhists, and inserting the one lone episode of Jewish persecution of Christians (in pre-Islamic Yemen--admittedly, the main reason this was the only example is the fact that this is probably the only instance in history in which Jews were in a position to persecute Christians), he then describes in not quite glowing terms Mohammed's original treaty with the Jews of Medina--and then makes no mention of the expulsion/massacre which Mohammed inflicted on those Jews of Medina several years later.  Then he airbrushes over the Sunni-Shia schism (trying to make it sound like it was simply a political struggle with no religious implications), talks about Islamic rule of non Moslem populations in general terms, and makes no mention of Moslem intolerance other than a reference to the Taliban's destruction of the giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan--and even there he adverts to a Christian parallel, the iconoclastic outbreaks which were sparked by the Protestant Reformation.

A more honest account would acknowledge the contrary evidence and give explanations that would fit into the basic theory.  He just pretends the contrary evidence doesn't exist.


When not trying to overtly push an agenda, he tells an important story, but the tendentious treatment of material on political grounds is a deep structural flaw.  I have not yet returned this to the library, but I doubt I will read further from it.

Thanks for this. Extremely helpful review. I'll pass.

[Karl Henning]

I read the first few chapters of this book last night, and frankly Frangopan comes across as a highly politicized, somewhat meretricious writer.

For instance, he blames the movement of nomadic tribes in Central Asia which helped catalyze the "barbarian" invasion and overrunning of the Western Roman Empire on climate change, and only climate change, ignoring all the other factors involved, and totally ignoring the complex connections the "barbarians" had with the Roman Empire to begin with (most importantly, the barbarians were not so barbarian and the invasion was not really an invasion, since many of the "barbarians" served as the core of the Roman army and were already settled in the Empire, or on its borders, long before Rome "fell").   

Second instance: he wants to depicts Islam as tolerant of other faiths.  So having made sure to fully describe Christian persecution of heretics and Zoroastrian persecution of Christians and Buddhists, and inserting the one lone episode of Jewish persecution of Christians (in pre-Islamic Yemen--admittedly, the main reason this was the only example is the fact that this is probably the only instance in history in which Jews were in a position to persecute Christians), he then describes in not quite glowing terms Mohammed's original treaty with the Jews of Medina--and then makes no mention of the expulsion/massacre which Mohammed inflicted on those Jews of Medina several years later.  Then he airbrushes over the Sunni-Shia schism (trying to make it sound like it was simply a political struggle with no religious implications), talks about Islamic rule of non Moslem populations in general terms, and makes no mention of Moslem intolerance other than a reference to the Taliban's destruction of the giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan--and even there he adverts to a Christian parallel, the iconoclastic outbreaks which were sparked by the Protestant Reformation.

A more honest account would acknowledge the contrary evidence and give explanations that would fit into the basic theory.  He just pretends the contrary evidence doesn't exist.


When not trying to overtly push an agenda, he tells an important story, but the tendentious treatment of material on political grounds is a deep structural flaw.  I have not yet returned this to the library, but I doubt I will read further from it.

Ugh.

[SimonNZ]

[Christo]

Thanks for this. Extremely helpful review. I'll pass.

Ugh.

Plaise wait, will respond later. There's more to be said. 

[Ken B]

Plaise wait, will respond later. There's more to be said. 

No doubt. And the WaPo says more!

In chapter after chapter, Europeans emerge as the villains. Heaven knows, there is much to justify this view, and we have scores of excellent studies that detail heinous actions by Europeans in the Middle East, Africa and the New World. But Frankopan is not content just to retell this story. Instead, he preaches endlessly about how the modern states of Europe arose as "the strong [i.e., the West] devoured the weak," how they prospered through "consolidation and covetousness," how overall the West succeeded in placing itself in the center of the world thanks to its "entrenched relation with violence and militarism." Lest we somehow miss the point, he concludes that "Europe's distinctive character as more aggressive, more unstable, and less peace-minded than other parts of the world now paid off."

Having worked himself into a rage, he dismisses European art of the 17th and 18th centuries as having been "forged by violence," a mark of opprobrium he withholds from most of the art produced under tyrants of the Eastern world clear to the Mughals in India.

Tendentious virtue-signalling is what it sounds like. The Guardian complains of factual errors, as well as the tendentiousness -- especially about Islam, as JS noted. Both reviews praise its readability, say it has lots of fascinating stuff, and applaud the idea of forefronting this history. But I suspect my tolerance for being told what to think, even when I know better, is no greater than Jeffrey's. I'll still pass

[Brian]

The best history books are judgmental about the past and happy to assign credit and blame as a natural part of the lesson-learning process.

But so are the worst.

[bwv 1080]

A very good book, that avoids the PC BS noted above, sparing neither the Comanches, Mexicans, Texans or Americans



The Comanches weren't monsters or noble savages, just raiders who acted no better or worse than Mongols or Vikings did back in their day.  Fascinating story of how in about 200 years with the introduction of the horse, the Comanches went from pitiful root-grubbers in Wyoming to the most militarily dominant Native American group, one that took nearly 50 years to subjugate

[kishnevi]

The best history books are judgmental about the past and happy to assign credit and blame as a natural part of the lesson-learning process.

But so are the worst.

My problem was not with assigning blame. It was with skipping over important data that did not fit easily into his thesis. He was dishonest.

To take the massacre/expulsion of the Jews of Medina, for example:. Muslim sources say the Jewish tribal leaders broke the treaties and started helping Mohammed's enemies, and that Mohammad's treatment of them was in response to that, which he took as an act of betrayal. Frankopan could have easily used that explanation without detracting from his presentation of Islam as a generally tolerant religion.  He could have admitted to Moslem persecution of minorities while pointing out that Christian Europe was far less tolerant. There were some episodes like the Almohads in Spain, but far less often than what occurred in Europe. There was no real equivalent of the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisition or the religious violence of the Reformation in Moslem history.  And there is a reason Jews often found a haven from Christian persecution in Moslem lands.
But Moslems did persecute minorities and burden them with various legal disabilities. A good advocate would have acknowledged that and explained how it did not weaken his case.  A bad advocate tries to pretend inconvenient facts do not exist, and that is what Frankopan did.

Ken B

Both reviews praise its readability, say it has lots of fascinating stuff, and applaud the idea of forefronting this history.

That it least is perfectly true. It could have been an excellent, even necessary book. As it stands, it is a useless book.