Scan barcode
Reviews
In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin by Erik Larson
mllejoyeuxnoel's review
5.0
Couldn't put it down. Skipped a couple dinners in vacation so I could stay at the beach to finish it. Larson is a master of the non-fiction world.
erikinthedistrict's review against another edition
dark
medium-paced
3.75
About a 50/50 split between the rise of the Third Reich and a catalogue of some of the weirdest guys imaginable
bryanfox's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.5
book_concierge's review
3.0
Book on CD read by Stephen Hoye
3.5***
The subtitle gives a pretty good synopsis: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin. In June 1933 Hitler had been named Chancellor and his reign of terror was beginning; his Storm Troopers detained and tortured anyone they felt might pose a threat. America’s consul general, George S Messersmith, was appalled by what he was witnessing: “With few exceptions, the men who are running this Government are of a mentality that you and I cannot understand. Some of them are psychopathic cases and would ordinarily be receiving treatment somewhere.” He bemoaned the fact that few Americans realized what was really happening in Germany. Into this turbulent situation came a history professor from the University of Chicago; unlikely as it seemed, William E Dodd was named ambassador to Germany. He was a rather unassuming man, who vowed to live a modest life in Berlin out of respect for his fellow Americans struggling to survive through the Depression. He brought with him his wife and his daughter, Martha. Their eye-witness diaries and letters over the next three and a half years form the basis for this book.
Of course, it’s easy to look back on the events of the early to mid 1930s and wonder how so many people could turn a blind eye to the evil that was Hitler. Hindsight is 20:20, and this book ends in 1937, before the world had truly cast a critical eye toward Germany’s leadership. What most interested me about this book were the personal stories of the Dodds. Martha, in particular, comes off as a flamboyant party girl with more interest in flouting convention than in understanding the political ramifications of her behavior. I kept wondering when she would finally wake up to the dangerous game she was playing, and I expected the outcome to be much worse for her than it was. Dodd, in comparison, faded into the background. Yes, he tried several times to alert authorities to the atrocities that were happening with increased frequency, but he was not a forceful person. He didn’t have the political influence to insist he be heard, and his heart was really with his life’s work – a history of the Old South – and not with this temporary post. His insistence on leading a frugal lifestyle while in one of Europe’s great cities, and where so many diplomats were judged on the size of their cars, their staffs, and their dinner parties, further set him apart and diminished what power his office initially gave him.
Watching these events unfold, and learning about the Dodds was interesting to me, but not compelling. Larson is known for exhaustive research as well as for a writing style that is more often seen in thrillers and mysteries. He really personalizes history. I’ve read several of his books and I found this one good but not great. Maybe that’s because this situation is more well-known to me than some of the others. Perhaps it’s because it deals with a political crime vs a personal murder. Or maybe it’s because I really did not like Martha Dodd and wanted to slap her upside the head for most of the book. Or it might be because I listened to the audio rather than read the text.
Stephen Hoye is an accomplished voice artist, but he has a certain quality to his narration that seems almost sarcastic or ironic or tongue-in-cheek. I just can’t quite put my finger on it, but there was something about his narration that just put me off the book. I was really interested and engaged for the first four discs or so, but then slowly grew bored.
3.5***
The subtitle gives a pretty good synopsis: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin. In June 1933 Hitler had been named Chancellor and his reign of terror was beginning; his Storm Troopers detained and tortured anyone they felt might pose a threat. America’s consul general, George S Messersmith, was appalled by what he was witnessing: “With few exceptions, the men who are running this Government are of a mentality that you and I cannot understand. Some of them are psychopathic cases and would ordinarily be receiving treatment somewhere.” He bemoaned the fact that few Americans realized what was really happening in Germany. Into this turbulent situation came a history professor from the University of Chicago; unlikely as it seemed, William E Dodd was named ambassador to Germany. He was a rather unassuming man, who vowed to live a modest life in Berlin out of respect for his fellow Americans struggling to survive through the Depression. He brought with him his wife and his daughter, Martha. Their eye-witness diaries and letters over the next three and a half years form the basis for this book.
Of course, it’s easy to look back on the events of the early to mid 1930s and wonder how so many people could turn a blind eye to the evil that was Hitler. Hindsight is 20:20, and this book ends in 1937, before the world had truly cast a critical eye toward Germany’s leadership. What most interested me about this book were the personal stories of the Dodds. Martha, in particular, comes off as a flamboyant party girl with more interest in flouting convention than in understanding the political ramifications of her behavior. I kept wondering when she would finally wake up to the dangerous game she was playing, and I expected the outcome to be much worse for her than it was. Dodd, in comparison, faded into the background. Yes, he tried several times to alert authorities to the atrocities that were happening with increased frequency, but he was not a forceful person. He didn’t have the political influence to insist he be heard, and his heart was really with his life’s work – a history of the Old South – and not with this temporary post. His insistence on leading a frugal lifestyle while in one of Europe’s great cities, and where so many diplomats were judged on the size of their cars, their staffs, and their dinner parties, further set him apart and diminished what power his office initially gave him.
Watching these events unfold, and learning about the Dodds was interesting to me, but not compelling. Larson is known for exhaustive research as well as for a writing style that is more often seen in thrillers and mysteries. He really personalizes history. I’ve read several of his books and I found this one good but not great. Maybe that’s because this situation is more well-known to me than some of the others. Perhaps it’s because it deals with a political crime vs a personal murder. Or maybe it’s because I really did not like Martha Dodd and wanted to slap her upside the head for most of the book. Or it might be because I listened to the audio rather than read the text.
Stephen Hoye is an accomplished voice artist, but he has a certain quality to his narration that seems almost sarcastic or ironic or tongue-in-cheek. I just can’t quite put my finger on it, but there was something about his narration that just put me off the book. I was really interested and engaged for the first four discs or so, but then slowly grew bored.
csgiansante's review
4.0
Larsen knows how to make narrative non-fiction interesting. It's another well written an enjoyable book, but I don't know if it's his best.
To focus on such a specific time period when the surrounding historical context is generally known makes it hard to feel sympathy for anyone in the book. Also, for such a tight focus to be placed on this one year period, there were a number of loose ends that didn't get tied up (even in the epilogue). While the actual event that closes off the book was a terrible part of human history, the book kind of ends with a whimper and goes for a bureaucratic approach to it.
Anyway, still a good Larsen output, but I've liked some of his other books more!
To focus on such a specific time period when the surrounding historical context is generally known makes it hard to feel sympathy for anyone in the book. Also, for such a tight focus to be placed on this one year period, there were a number of loose ends that didn't get tied up (even in the epilogue). While the actual event that closes off the book was a terrible part of human history, the book kind of ends with a whimper and goes for a bureaucratic approach to it.
Anyway, still a good Larsen output, but I've liked some of his other books more!