Denerick's Log

Denerick

mrsdewinter wrote: »

I agree with you in some respects - it is a chore to read - but it is so rewarding, I don't begrudge the weeks out of my life it took to read it. As somebody who only bought it because of the hype, and is now hooked on (extremely light) historical fiction now, it opened my eyes to a period of history which had been largely irrelevant to me. You're right that Cromwell's rise to power is not explained well at all, but I got the strong feeling that the end was leaving the author the option of writing a sequel.

I hate to sound snobby, but its only because I have a rough knowledge of the Tudors that I was so disillusioned by this book. I just disliked her style of writing; needlessly vague and dull. And her characterisation of Norfolk was quintessentially silly, and Henry had very little testosterone. Boleyn, was as ever, a complete bitch!

All I can say is 'meh'. Thomas More is also obliperated in this book, he is made out to be a narrow minded simpleton when the reality is this couldn't be further from the truth.

Denerick

33.

Reformation Europe, 1517-1559 by G.R. Elton

This book is both authoritative and insightful. A thorough overview of the reformation, and the final chapter is an interesting anlaysis of the broader implications of the reformation. Elton also has a go at sociologists, which is always good!

7/10.

Denerick

34.

Postwar by Tony Judt.

The late Tony Judt has written a fantastic book here. A testament to the historian's aspiration to the status of literature. While adopting a broadly chronological approach to 60 years of European history (going right up to the Iraq war and beyond!) he embraces social, economic and cultural arguments that buttress what is still essentially a history of personalities - something I think that is lacking in modern historical scholarship. Usually its one or the other - that personality shapes history and thus the structures, or that the structures are everything and personality is merely incidental and a consequence of that. Judt is broad minded and allows events, persons and social changes to develop before you, coalesced around an enviable writing style and some wonderful prose.

You will learn lots reading this book. And I mean lots, because it is big. But it doesn't ever feel like a chore - you want to keep reading to the extent that you find yourself still awake at half past two in the morning, reluctant to enter the land of nod. Its size should not deter anyone - once engrossed, you are a victim to its magesterial sweep and grandeur.

Judts big idea (He introduces the book by contrasting people with one big idea and people with hundreds of small ideas, saying that he is of the latter camp) is that Europe came to terms with its postwar guilt by accepting the futility of warfare, extremism and violence and embracing a broadly social democratic consensus built on the welfare state, the EU and 'ever closer union' of the people of Europe. The eastern bloc is dealt with in detail as well, and we come to learn of the many tragedies of Soviet oppression over some 45 years - the ruthless tyranny of Stalin, the crushing of Hungary in 1956, the smattering of that elusive liberty that overcame Prague for a brief Spring in 1968. Its ultimate demise was a combination of internal economic absurdities merged with the unintended consequences of Gorbachev's liberalisation. As he said, there was nothing 'inevitable' about the break up of the Soviet Empire or of the collapse of communism. Judt helps explain how this unexpected and truly cataclysmic event took place.

Does this deserve a 10? Certainly. There are some minor defects, such as overuse of terms like 'anachronistic' or 'surplus rural population'. But these are minor irritants, irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. There is also the question of the utility of meta narratives of this nature - compromised inevitably by what it excludes as opposed to what it discusses - but these are for naught. As historical writing goes, Judt is right up there at the top. A credit to his profession, with the writing gifts of the most talented novelists. His recent death is a mortal blow to the world of historical writing, and this will rightfully be regarded as his great magnus opus.

9.5/10 (Nothing is ever 10/10, but this comes pretty damn close)

Denerick

35.

The Little Stranger by Sarah Waters
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67878603#post67878603

Denerick

36.

The Cider House Rules by John Irving

Irving writes like a vine, dangling to and from, everything interconnected but unique and imbibed with a continuity. The Great American novel at its finest... a marvel of Maine! Such emotional depth, clarity of meaning and a wonderful examination of ethics. I will admit to having welled up in certain parts of the book - over Wilbur Larches 'rare compassion', his demise, the aching love triangle of Candy, Homer and Wally, Wally's survival (Not that it was much of a surprise really) over Rose Rose and Homer's eventual realisation of destiny - that he must play God if the world insists on refusing compassion to those that need it most. I found myself comparing Wilbur Larch to Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird - men of rare compassion, understanding, grace, and a strong sense of the righteous. The Cider House Rules was a memorable film, but the novel is so much more totemic, so profound, so mystifying at times. This is accessible and I highly recommend it.

9/10.

Denerick

37.

The Mosquito Coast by Paul Theroux.

Allie is an eccentric American sickened to the core by American consumerism. An inventor and a tortured genius, he drags his family to Honduras where they bring civilisation to the heart of the jungle. As his dreams of self sufficient betterment unravels, so does the supposed superiority of life away from hectic and impersonal 1960s America. The book begins as very literal escapism but ends in horror. It is interesting in many ways, but fails to hit the target regularly enough. Allie's rants are amusing, and his children's incomprehension useful for the reader to understand the new environment, but the deeper meaning is somewhat muddled and overstated.

6ish/10

Denerick

38.

The World According to Garp by John Irving

The World According to Garp naturally suffers with comparison. Had I never read The Cider House Rules, this book would automatically be elevated to sit among my personal favourites. But its weaknesses as a story – which in isolation are not insurmountable and certainly not enough to damage the books overall value or enjoyability – are intensified by my wild and irrational love affair with Wilbur Larch and Homer Wells, characters who do not appear in The World According to Garp.

The book says all sorts of interesting and witty things about militant feminism. Garp's mother, Jenny Fields, was the author of a book called ‘The Sexual Suspect’. She was a sexual suspect because she wanted to live alone, and this confused people. She was also a sexual suspect because she wanted a child, but not a lover to share her life with. Garp’s father is a brain damaged WWII veteran who had only base and animal instincts left. His one and only purpose was masturbation. Jenny, a nurse, found the perfect male receptacle to facilitate the child she wanted and needed. It is fitting and relevant to the novel that Garp is the product of a completely loveless and utilitarian union of two people. I should probably make clear that Jenny Fields is a fantastically well written character who portrays very well how someone can become a symbol for a diverse and silly group of people without either wanting or confirming the beliefs/prejudices of these same people.

Garp was a novelist. While I tend to shy away from books that have writers as their protagonists, in this case an exception is duly deserved. Garp’s insights litter the novel, and augment an altogether thought provoking book that explores the nature of loss, sexuality (It is not a coincidence that every sexual action provokes a massive and wildly disproportionate reaction. Garp loses one of his sons and the eye of his other son because his wife was giving a blowjob to her grad student. This kind of tragic farce underlines a book with some seriously screwed up black comedy.) and of course, feminism. One of the stronger and more sympathetic characters in this book is an American footballer called Robert Muldoon, a transsexual who becomes Roberta Muldoon. She becomes Garp’s closest friend and is an amusing woman who acts as a literary undercover investigator of the feminist cult Jenny Fields accidentally built up around herself.

Since commencing this book I started a new full time job. Naturally I’ll require a bit of time in order to renegotiate my leisure time (Mostly spent reading books, newspapers, magazines, the internet), streamlining, that sort of crap. The World According to Garp was read in dozens of evening sittings of 20-30 pages a night. Because of this, the story followed me wherever I went – it is such a strong narrative that demands further contemplation – and in many ways I became entwined in that ferocious Irving vine, caught by his determination to grip me into and around the novel that literally has become a part of my life.

While not as flawless as The Cider House Rules, The World According to Garp compensates with more aspiration, and a greater emotional depth (As if it were even possible) My version of the book has a lovely afterword by John Irving, where he speaks of his own children and scorns ‘autobiographical fiction’. In his afterword he mentions letters he received from parents who had lost children (The death of Walt is depicted in a singularly poignant and moving chapter) Irving responded that he never had to undergo this terror. But in his imagination, his children die all the time. If nothing else, John Irving has succeeded in imparting his fears in a clever and reluctant way, much in keeping with the general mood and tone of the novel.

8/10

Denerick

39.

The Damned United by David Peace.

Clough out!

Just kidding. This is written in an electrifying style, very entertaining, and a great exploration of the ultimate flawed footballing genius. All lovers of footie manager must read this

8/10.

Denerick

40.

Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut

I wouldn't know where to start critiquing this book, so I won't bother. Suffice to say I enjoyed this, and am glad to have read it. Although It will never rank among my personal favourites, I can easily see why it is such a cult classic.

Denerick

1.

Citizens by Simon Schama.

Took me a long time to read this one. Too long. Need to get back on the reading bandwagon.

Schama pretty much reaffirms my general worldview and my personal opinion of the French revolution. He dwells on the descent of the revolution into primal violence, which he argues gave it both its legitimacy and its energy. The full horror of the Terror, the crushing of the Vendean rebels, the brutal dechristianisation is all laid bare. Schama is biased. Which is good. History without bias is merely a chronicle, something which Schama alludes to in his subtitle ('A Chronicle of the French Revolution')

Without really mentioning Burke, Schama offered a quintessentially Burkean interpretation of the French Revolution. A good, long book. Could perhaps do with a little fleshing out here and there. I had to keep going back to the index to look up individuals that Schama is constantly namedropping. Gets a little confusing after a while.

I'm compiling a reading list that has a large number of short snappy novels with a large profile and reputation. I've started re-reading 1984, for example. Hoping this will get me back into the spirit of reading.

8ish/10.

Denerick

2.

1984 by George Orwell.

I first read this when I was 14. I understood the broad parameters of the novel and its deeper implications but I was largely clueless about the true horror at the heart of this book. While reading this for a second time, with an adult brain, its difficult not to conclude that Orwell was in the middle of a particularly nasty LSD trip. I can't imagine such political philosophy, such a cautionary tale to emerge from sober minds. It requires somebody exceptional, somebody truly outside of the grain to make these observations and insights.

What struck me most the second time round is that Ingsoc, or the various philosophies of the three super states revolve not around demanding obedience but on demanding your utter devotion, both in mind and body. The party and the state, who comprise both the sum of human consciousness and who seem to be an indefinite feature of man's future, do not make demands ('thou shalt') but instead tell people what they are ('thou art')

The book is best in the final third when it exposes the abject brutality of the regime and culminates with Winston losing whatever remains of his individuality.

I always loved and admired Orwell's Animal Farm. Like 1984, it is a cautionary tale, a homage to thwarted liberty. But unlike Animal Farm, 1984 is an altogether more hopeless story. In Animal Farm, some animals maintain individuality and can see through the regime for what it is. Even those who are purged manage to leave a legacy, and there is a sense that the continuity of liberty will live on, so long as there are those who can inhabit an independet mind and heart. In 1984, there is no future or legacy, as the party and the state have succeeded in destroying everything within man that creates hope. The party succeeds in not only controlling human affairs, but in controlling human minds. That is the true horror here.

I'm not sure if I could give this book an actual rating.

Denerick

3.

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokev.

I find myself a slightly altered person having read this. Its wonderfully perverse, and the prose is just simply beautiful. The second half dragged slightly but it still remains a curious and challenging little novel. Highly recommended.

Denerick

4.

I, Claudius by Robert Graves

What a wonderful narrative. Nothing beats a good old fashioned yarn, based on history but not subserviant to fact; authentic but not afraid to deviate in order to expand into fiction. Claudius is the perfect narrator; universally considered a fool due his physical lameness and his verbal stammer, and thus is able to see all, and evade all suspicion of either conspiracy or malice. Those closest to him know that he has an astute mind (By profession an historian) and stays alive during the tyranny of Tiberius and the madness of Caligula by playing the part of fool; only to become the new Caesar upon Caligula's assassination (Being the only member of the Imperial family who had not been purged, commited suicide, and who who did not seem to overly offend anyone) His anonymity insured both his survival and his rise to power.

I'd recommend this to everyone. Am looking forward to the sequel. 8/10.

Denerick

5. Claudius The God by Robert Graves

Basically an extension of the first book. This follows the reign of the Emperor Claudius, which is simultaneously less and more interesting. Again, a fascinating narrative and something that has rekindled an adolescent infatuation with Roman history.

One thing immediately sticks out. Claudius is/was a committed Republican and regularly states his intention to restore the Republic 'as soon as the affairs of State allow for it'. As time dragged on, he found himself unable to do so because A) A Republic wouldn't exist after a prolonged period of monarchy; A new Emperor would simply emerge as the political class were unable to display the political virtue of the ancient Republican days* and Claudius himself was becoming accustomed to life as Emperor, though he did govern largely wisely and attempted to foster a Republican spirit. His frailties as a person are more evident here, and the strains of his mind also with his disgusting wife Messalina. How easily he was deceived and manipulated.

*Here is an extract that illustrate this point:

"You know how it is when one talks of liberty
Everything seems beautifully simple.
One expects every gate to open and wall to fall flat.

The world is perfectly content with me as Emperor,
All but the people who want to be Emperor themselves.
Nobody really wants the Republic back"

8/10.

Denerick

6. The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek.

I remain unconvinced. Hayeks central thesis seems to be that central planning of any kind; be that the relatively benign desire to reduce poverty or the desire to create a classless society will inevitably create a totalitarian society, as planned societies and programmes naturally cannot be reconciled with the principal of competition, which creates the individualism and the system that best allocates resources within a free society. (Long sentance, I know) Also, since all those dispirate groups who want to 'plan' naturally hold differing views of what they should plan, the chaos resulting from this would prohibit competition further, which is supposedly the best means through which individuals can realise their potential.

Its probably important to note that this was written during the Second World War, and that Hayek wasn't alive to see the postwar Welfare State in Europe.

Hayek talks about the liberal tradition and the socialist tradition as if they are two irreconcilable foes. The reality is that the Postwar political consensus combined liberalism and socialism; it divided the economic sphere (Heavy State involvement) and the personal sphere (Little State involvement) On this count, Hayek is fundamentally flawed. Who knows, history may yet prove him right. The last 65 years may have been a collective illusion. Maybe the next generation of Hitlers and Stalins will emerge from our benign system. I doubt it, frankly.

For all that, it was a riveting book. I found myself agreeing with many of his core assumptions, even if I didn't buy into the logical follow on from that. Its Glenn Beckian in some places (If you believe that some sort of centrally directed control of the economy can reduce inequality and reduce poverty it doesn't necessarily follow that you want a Nazi or communist regime; or even that one of those ideologies would reign supreme as a result of our good intentions) But overall, a decent defence of 19th century liberalism.

One little section stuck in my mind as admirable; we are still left with the same curse today in the form of pinkos:

'Many a university teacher... has seen english and American students return from the Continent, uncertain whether they were communists or nazis and certain only that they hated western civilisation' p. 30

If he was writing today, I wonder would he himself revise some of his arguments? He seems like a likable fellow, and I do like the way his brain works (And his writing style is accessible - no meaningless jargon here)

Denerick

7.

Contact by Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan was a scientist/astronomor/cosmologist who directed and produced the 'Cosmos' science series. He really was a great man, has an ability to explain tough scientific mumbo to idiots like me. So I decided to read his one and only novel, where he attempts to reconcile science and religion and envisions a post nationalist society where human beings see each other as part of one global whole in the face of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Nice, fluffy story. Some of the characters are well written, others not so much. Sagan is not a novelist, he is a scientist, and there are some aesthetic issues here in terms of writing style. In all, a book designed to promote a vision of earthly harmony and of cosmological order. Never likely to win a nobel prize for it, but hey, who's judging.

Eliot Rosewater

Listen, statist! You're not getting away with this! I have refuted all of your points: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71525470#post71525470

Denerick

8.

Singapore Grip by J.G. Farrell

The third book in the Empire Trilogy, Singapore Grip follows similar patterns and themes as portrayed in Troubles and the Siege of Krishnapur. Of the three, it is the least well written and the most rambling, lacking a coherency or narrative structure in keeping with his worthy attempt to chronicle and describe the disintigration of the British Empire.

Singapore Grip follows the fortunes of the Blackett family, a far eastern rubber baron, as well as a cast of characters that in typical Farrell style, are constructs of an ideological whirlpool in motion.

I'll not go into plot analysis here as I'm really not that bothered. The book is full of witticisms, which are certainly a delight, but I'm reminded of the gloom I felt after reading Closing Time by Joseph Heller, alienated by its inability to follow the brilliance of its prequel, Catch 22.

6/10.

Eliot Rosewater

I appreciate your honesty. It's always tough when you read a book by an author you love but are totally under-whelmed. I'm reading Troubles right now!! Well, not right now - 'cause I'm writing this! I will report back...

Denerick

9.

The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather.

Heather does a good job at putting order to the significant chaos that is the last 150 years of western Roman history. Illuminating in places, providing some excellent analysis and is a worthy exemplar of historical scholarship that can be both engaging and informative.

I'm not informed enough to debate the historiography present, but for someone who knew nothing about the collapse of the (western) Roman Empire, this book is a godsend.

Bloody immigrants. Nick Griffin would love the idea that western civilisation collapsed to barbarism because of a series of population movements from the Steppes to easter Europe...

7/10.

Denerick

10.

Count Belisarius by Robert Graves.

What a let down. Right Graves, we get it, Count Belisarius was great and everyone else was a bastard.

4/10.

Denerick

11.

The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus.

A supremely interesting book and my first foray into ancient historical writing. There are gaps in the text (His chapter on the reign of Caligula is lost, as is the early reign of Claudius) The natural next step for someone who enjoyed the I, Claudius books by Robert Graves. Also contains the reign of Nero, who was a bit of an arsehole, to put it mildly.

Denerick

12.

The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet.

Ken, Ken, Ken. Why do you hold me in such contempt? Do you think I'm a fool, an idiot? Do you think that I am so incapable of understanding subtlety that I require the narrator to reveal the narrative mystery with constant explanation of motive, character, and events?

A great story - in the vein of an amiable grandfather who looses his way every so often - but I didn't care for his style, which continuously insulted my intelligence. This man doesn't do subtlety.

I must restate how much I enjoyed the actual story itself, and I'm glad that the tv series deviated so much from the original novel. It is essentially an old and familiar allegory of good and evil. Its lack of innovation in no way takes away from the general blockbustery feel, and its nice to be able to curl up behind the duvet and retreat into historical fiction. It was also occasionally nice not to have to think too much about the plot.

8/10.

Denerick

13. Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

I literally have no fúcking idea what this book was about.

8/10

Denerick

14.

Penguin Lost by Andrey Kurkov.

Having read and enjoyed Death and the Penguin, Kurkovs sequel was the obvious next step. It is clever, dark, and quite biting in places. Generally I think the search for his penguin was a search for his conscience (Plenty of grimy portrayals of Ukranian political and underground life in both books) In the first novel he betrays his penguin by taking his passage to the Antartic, in the second he eventually salvages his guilty conscience and sets him free where he belongs.

7/10

Enkidu

Denerick wrote: »

5. Claudius The God by Robert Graves
...

I quite enjoyed this book myself, particularly because it manages to give you an intuition for Roman cultural views. For example the interaction of Claudius with his physician Xenophon perfectly sums up how the Romans viewed the Greeks.

Also by putting you in Roman society it makes you realise that Livy, e.t.c. were "just" men, not gods with some special knowledge of history and were often completely wrong (e.g. the origins and history of the Etruscans).

Denerick

Enkidu wrote: »

I quite enjoyed this book myself, particularly because it manages to give you an intuition for Roman cultural views. For example the interaction of Claudius with his physician Xenophon perfectly sums up how the Romans viewed the Greeks.

Also by putting you in Roman society it makes you realise that Livy, e.t.c. were "just" men, not gods with some special knowledge of history and were often completely wrong (e.g. the origins and history of the Etruscans).

Its easy to lionise men like Livy but this is mainly because the sources we consult are themselves various creatures of lionisation and propaganda.

The beauty of historical fiction, when done correctly and with good care, is to create a believable world that feels authentic in its own time, without succumbing to either the cultural or political mores of the age in which the author writes. For example, I was almost dreading the possibility of Claudius denouncing slavery somewhere along the way, as this would be a whollely 21st (In this case early 20th century) cultural preoccupation - there survives (Or was known to be) absolutely no abolitionist movement, no known writings questioning its fundamental morality in any Roman manuscript. (Though the treatment of slaves has had some contemporary discussion) etc. etc.

Graves is an excellent writer and in my view it is difficult to find a better historical novelist (Though Count Belisarius was simply dreadful) Of what I've read, only Eco is superior; but he writes what I would deem to be literary historical fiction, while Graves is stark in his admission that the two Claudius books are potboilers.

Denerick

15.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

If you are going to murder someone, you'd better confess to the crime quickly as the guilt will rapidly make you insane (Assuming you are a thoughtfull intellectual like the odd and complex hero of this novel) Or better still, don't commit the deed at all. A fascinating exploration of guilt, redemption and the degrading effects of poverty. It is rightfully regarded as one of the greatest novels of all time.

9/10

Denerick

16.

Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin

I owe George R.R. Martin. I once tried to read his Song of Ice and Fire Series and thought it was crap. The reason? I read the wrong bloody book... the third instead of the first! So while we can all agree that Denerick is an idiot, perhaps some of us can also agree that Game of Thrones is a splendid novel and promises an even better fantasy series. The TV series is very loyal to the novel, perhaps the exception is Lord Renly, but for all I know he may turn out to be a homosexual yet...

The plot is intriguing and absorbing, few books will keep you awake until 2AM in the night, making your drowsy and grumpy at work the next day. Fantastic. I'm running out of superlatives here.

9/10.

EDIT: The book is an imagined medieval world, built on the premise of a large unified kingdom with several great houses who are effectively kings in themselves. The central theme is one of power and its acquisition. Even the more noble of the peoples, like the sturdy and virtuous folk of the North (Who remind me of the Ancient Hebrews, for some reason) are not immune to these temptations and their inevitable consequences. Honour is important too, but honour is not always tied with virtue (As it is with say Tolkien) but rather in loyalty and duty to family. The black watch are an interesting exploration of this theme.

Caros

Next on my reading list so glad to hear you enjoyed it!