Take a photo of a barcode or cover
pinkmooon 's review for:
Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare
by Philip Short
I think good history should leave its reader feeling they've learned a lot, and wanting to know more. As a "biography of Pol Pot", this is quietly unsatisfying, because I still can't say I know much about the man. This is Short's intention — he portrays Pol as a true enigma, of inscrutable smiles and shifting identities.
In general, I wouldn't say this is good history on the strength of its cast. Despite their being many interesting people, the focus of the book is not on them, psychologically. This might be explained by Short being a journalist first and foremost — I remember struggling through Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation for being so weighed down by the newspaperman's deluge of names and facts that I was beaten down by nihilism and couldn't continue.
Prince Norodom Sihanouk is the real star of this book, and yet Short is, while capable, not the kind of historian who will give us those brilliant asides on how weird these important historical figures were, even when there is so much weirdness out there to explore. I can't blame an author, when dealing with such a grim topic, to avoid those Suetonius-like whispers of gossip, but I do enjoy them. An awful lot happens in this book, and a bit of dark humour sticks in one's mind.
The subtitle Anatomy of a Nightmare is well-earned, in Short's brilliant epilogue on evil and Cambodia's present state. Throughout the book, he writes intriguingly, if not entirely convincingly, about the Khmer mind, Theravada Buddhism and the capacity for ultraviolence in seemingly gentle people. I don't like to substitute my discomfort with an argument for it being weak, but Short repeatedly musing on how Khmer culture just doesn't recognise what we believe to be conventional morality certainly borders on the Orientalist.
I've read one or two reviews here complaining that his association of Buddhism with a disregard for individual freedoms is fraught and unconvincing, but hey: I'm a would-be Buddhist, not quite practising but greatly interested. I know all about the flaws of Abrahamic religion. I'm willing to humour the idea not all Buddhists are serene and enlightened. Certainly, Short's understanding of the Khmer Rouge as uniquely non-rational among communist movements seemed to fit the facts.
Speaking of the Khmer Rouge, this might not even be the best book for one looking for an introduction to them, as much as I enjoyed it. I knew they killed people who wore glasses, and that was about it—Short spends maybe a paragraph on that common association, and in general presumes we are familiar with the brutality of the regime. He certainly doesn't hide from exploring its horrors, but considering how late in the book their reign over Cambodia comes, there's a lot left on the table. Hence my interest in reading more.
If you want a single text to satisfy your curiosity on one of the 20th century's great murderers, this might not be enough. As someone who knew almost nothing, I was unsatisfied in that respect. A lot of great non-fiction does this, though. It is better to want to know more than leave falsely believing one has learned all there is important to know.
I can't help but find someone like Pol Pot a hell of a lot more frightening than other dictators. He didn't seem to have that overwhelming, oversensitive ego. He smiled, he rarely raised his voice, he killed, he did not regret. He never gave enough away to really lose the mystique of his evil.
In general, I wouldn't say this is good history on the strength of its cast. Despite their being many interesting people, the focus of the book is not on them, psychologically. This might be explained by Short being a journalist first and foremost — I remember struggling through Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation for being so weighed down by the newspaperman's deluge of names and facts that I was beaten down by nihilism and couldn't continue.
Prince Norodom Sihanouk is the real star of this book, and yet Short is, while capable, not the kind of historian who will give us those brilliant asides on how weird these important historical figures were, even when there is so much weirdness out there to explore. I can't blame an author, when dealing with such a grim topic, to avoid those Suetonius-like whispers of gossip, but I do enjoy them. An awful lot happens in this book, and a bit of dark humour sticks in one's mind.
The subtitle Anatomy of a Nightmare is well-earned, in Short's brilliant epilogue on evil and Cambodia's present state. Throughout the book, he writes intriguingly, if not entirely convincingly, about the Khmer mind, Theravada Buddhism and the capacity for ultraviolence in seemingly gentle people. I don't like to substitute my discomfort with an argument for it being weak, but Short repeatedly musing on how Khmer culture just doesn't recognise what we believe to be conventional morality certainly borders on the Orientalist.
I've read one or two reviews here complaining that his association of Buddhism with a disregard for individual freedoms is fraught and unconvincing, but hey: I'm a would-be Buddhist, not quite practising but greatly interested. I know all about the flaws of Abrahamic religion. I'm willing to humour the idea not all Buddhists are serene and enlightened. Certainly, Short's understanding of the Khmer Rouge as uniquely non-rational among communist movements seemed to fit the facts.
Speaking of the Khmer Rouge, this might not even be the best book for one looking for an introduction to them, as much as I enjoyed it. I knew they killed people who wore glasses, and that was about it—Short spends maybe a paragraph on that common association, and in general presumes we are familiar with the brutality of the regime. He certainly doesn't hide from exploring its horrors, but considering how late in the book their reign over Cambodia comes, there's a lot left on the table. Hence my interest in reading more.
If you want a single text to satisfy your curiosity on one of the 20th century's great murderers, this might not be enough. As someone who knew almost nothing, I was unsatisfied in that respect. A lot of great non-fiction does this, though. It is better to want to know more than leave falsely believing one has learned all there is important to know.
I can't help but find someone like Pol Pot a hell of a lot more frightening than other dictators. He didn't seem to have that overwhelming, oversensitive ego. He smiled, he rarely raised his voice, he killed, he did not regret. He never gave enough away to really lose the mystique of his evil.