Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.16 AVERAGE
4.16 AVERAGE
After all the hype, all the praise, all the critics who said this was the best book about the origins of the First World War that had ever been written, you'd forgive me for starting this book in something of an ecstatic tizzy. But ultimately, when you finally get to page 613 and a final sentence making justifying use of the title, you realize that you've been sitting through the previous 612 pages with a horrible case of blue balls. And believe me, I don't say that lightly.
For 100 pages or so, Clark's book is interesting enough. I'd never read a book on the First World War that delved with such depth into the political machinations of the Serbian government and all the plotting and assassinations happening behind the scenes and in the middle of the night is, almost, thrilling. However, as soon as the comparatively brisk first part ends we're on to greater European entanglements and a cast of characters so large it makes Game of Thrones look like a dress rehearsal for a middle school Christmas pageant. At the end of the book, my head was still swimming with names.
This wouldn't be such a bad thing, except that Clark's prose seems designed to send one into a catatonic state. Yes, spectacularly researched and packed full of a staggering amount of information, but it's all for naught when all that academia is packaged not in a smooth, easy to swallow pill but a mannequin's leg you're expected to put up your ass. Clark, why do you have to be so boring! For fuck's sake, who gives a damn what the French Ambassador in Russia cares about the Morocco or the first Balkan War when it is never clear what one has to do with the other or how they ultimately tie in with anything else that happens. It feels just like filler. To put a modern day spin on it, it would be as if the French Ambassador to Germany were discussing his hesitation over the British and American decision to go into Iraq in 2003. Sorry Mr. Ambassador, but as you don't call the shots or are seemingly tight with anyone who does, 1. What the fuck does it matter what you think and, 2. Why are we reading about your thoughts for so many damned pages?
Not to say that Clark doesn't have his moments, when he talks to us like we're people rather than computers. Noting how the rulers of many of the great powers at the time were, more often than not, connected in blood or marriage to one another, he writes:
“Viewed from this perspective, the outbreak of war in 1914 looks rather like the culmination of a family feud.”
I read Margaret MacMillan's "The War That Ended Peace" immediately before this one and I must say that on all fronts, MacMillan bests Clark. MacMillan contains all the political intrigue and diplomatic wrangling in her book but writes with such an urgency that we feel as if we are there in the room with the key players as they head towards the fateful decision. Not only is MacMillan far more readable while still being equally informative, but her characters just feel more real, or at least, more present than they do in "The Sleepwalkers."
In the end, the only satisfaction I feel upon finishing "The Sleepwalkers" is an immense sense of relief that it's finally over... Better books, and lovers, await.
For 100 pages or so, Clark's book is interesting enough. I'd never read a book on the First World War that delved with such depth into the political machinations of the Serbian government and all the plotting and assassinations happening behind the scenes and in the middle of the night is, almost, thrilling. However, as soon as the comparatively brisk first part ends we're on to greater European entanglements and a cast of characters so large it makes Game of Thrones look like a dress rehearsal for a middle school Christmas pageant. At the end of the book, my head was still swimming with names.
This wouldn't be such a bad thing, except that Clark's prose seems designed to send one into a catatonic state. Yes, spectacularly researched and packed full of a staggering amount of information, but it's all for naught when all that academia is packaged not in a smooth, easy to swallow pill but a mannequin's leg you're expected to put up your ass. Clark, why do you have to be so boring! For fuck's sake, who gives a damn what the French Ambassador in Russia cares about the Morocco or the first Balkan War when it is never clear what one has to do with the other or how they ultimately tie in with anything else that happens. It feels just like filler. To put a modern day spin on it, it would be as if the French Ambassador to Germany were discussing his hesitation over the British and American decision to go into Iraq in 2003. Sorry Mr. Ambassador, but as you don't call the shots or are seemingly tight with anyone who does, 1. What the fuck does it matter what you think and, 2. Why are we reading about your thoughts for so many damned pages?
Not to say that Clark doesn't have his moments, when he talks to us like we're people rather than computers. Noting how the rulers of many of the great powers at the time were, more often than not, connected in blood or marriage to one another, he writes:
“Viewed from this perspective, the outbreak of war in 1914 looks rather like the culmination of a family feud.”
I read Margaret MacMillan's "The War That Ended Peace" immediately before this one and I must say that on all fronts, MacMillan bests Clark. MacMillan contains all the political intrigue and diplomatic wrangling in her book but writes with such an urgency that we feel as if we are there in the room with the key players as they head towards the fateful decision. Not only is MacMillan far more readable while still being equally informative, but her characters just feel more real, or at least, more present than they do in "The Sleepwalkers."
In the end, the only satisfaction I feel upon finishing "The Sleepwalkers" is an immense sense of relief that it's finally over... Better books, and lovers, await.
This book is a well-written account of the start of the First World War. Although it is drawn out and takes a while to get through, I would highly recommend it to anyone with a somewhat serious interest in the topic.
Anyone who knows me might find it bit unusual that I would be picking up a book about one of the World Wars, that it would take me over a month to read it, and that I would give it such a high rating. In fact, after I had finished school I was very much fed up with studying the two World Wars ad nauseam. This book, though, bares a mere passing resemblance to the narrative we were supposed to memorize in school. For one thing, Clark is not interested in producing another blame narrative. Instead he gives an account of how the events unfolded and the people that were involved. That might sound inconsequential, but it actually makes all the difference. Because nothing distorts a picture like the lining up of evidence against one side or the other. And conversely, few things will get you riled up about history like watching flawed people make ill advised decisions that lead to disastrous consequences you are still getting to experience today. I do agree with Clark that the events leading up to the Great War feel much more relevant today than they would have at any time since. That might have been one reason why I had to put the book down so much just to find my calm again.
An excellent investigation into the mechanics of how the states of Europe went to war in 1914. Clark's work does a great job of presenting the substantial amount of contingencies that resulted in the Great War. A fair criticism is that the work keeps the reader focused completely on the politics of the period and does not discuss how the peoples of Europe were conditioned to accept the outbreak of war, save for early in work investigating the growth of Serbian nationalism. While majority of the states involved were not liberal democracies sensitive to public opinion, we should do well to remember that while states declare war, order troop movements, etcetera it is the everyday people who give their lives in combat and if the majority of people don't accept that war is a necessary solution, the armies won't last long in the field.
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
tense
medium-paced
Lately, I have been reading a lot about WWI and the events that led up to the catastrophe and I highly recommend this book. Clark presents an alternative interpretation of the causes of the war, arguing convincingly that 1.) all the major players were equally culpable, and 2.) the war was not inevitable. In both the introduction and afterward, Clark explains why these two points are so important to understand, because there are definite parallels between the situation of today and the one of 1914. For instance, Clark says, during the Euro-zone crisis of 2011, everyone agreed something unimaginably horrible would happen if the Euro-zone fell apart, but every country seemed to be using the events to advance their own interests. I would add that there is something eerily familiar about the influence of terrorism and aggressive nationalism on policy decisions and today's political culture.
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I learned a lot from this book about a period of history I was not familiar with - European relations during the pre-World War I period leading up to the start of the war. Also helped me better understand events of the late twentieth century related to Serbia and other Balkan states, since I learned the recent history of those countries. However, the book is very dense and requires a lot of concentration since it discusses internal and external relations of more than 10 countries I could read only a few pages at a time.