Scan barcode
socraticgadfly's reviews
972 reviews
The Sleeping Beauties: And Other Stories of Mystery Illness by Suzanne O'Sullivan
adventurous
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
A simply great, and straightforward, book on psychosomatic illness, or functional neurological disorder, as O'Sullivan notes the more modern term is.
She visits several sites to see modern such cases in action, or in a couple of cases, at their tale end or afterward. Some involve a few individuals, but others involve larger groups. She notes that in such cases, it's not mass psychogenic illness, but mass sociogenic — the group is part of the induction.
Especially with groups, she notes people don't want to accept such prognoses, because they find it shaming and believe that this is a claim they are "faking it." O'Sullivan notes that is not the case, while also noting officials making pronouncements of psychogenic illness often don't explain that in particular and don't present the diagnosis well in general.
And so, alternative explanations are sought, such as in traditionalist religion in some cases, or things like antivaxxer conspiracies in others. With individuals, sometimes it's outside society that doesn't want to accept a psychogenic illness identification because they know it's an indictment of wider society. Here, O'Sullivan's first case, children of asylum seekers in Sweden who have had their asylum claims rejected at least once, and many the maximum three times, exhibiting "resignation syndrome" (also displayed elsewhere) come to mind. The Swedish doctor in the book, at least, clearly doesn't want to accept that these children are reacting to their parents' asylum claims being rejected, their internalization of their parents' fear, etc.
She visits several sites to see modern such cases in action, or in a couple of cases, at their tale end or afterward. Some involve a few individuals, but others involve larger groups. She notes that in such cases, it's not mass psychogenic illness, but mass sociogenic — the group is part of the induction.
Especially with groups, she notes people don't want to accept such prognoses, because they find it shaming and believe that this is a claim they are "faking it." O'Sullivan notes that is not the case, while also noting officials making pronouncements of psychogenic illness often don't explain that in particular and don't present the diagnosis well in general.
And so, alternative explanations are sought, such as in traditionalist religion in some cases, or things like antivaxxer conspiracies in others. With individuals, sometimes it's outside society that doesn't want to accept a psychogenic illness identification because they know it's an indictment of wider society. Here, O'Sullivan's first case, children of asylum seekers in Sweden who have had their asylum claims rejected at least once, and many the maximum three times, exhibiting "resignation syndrome" (also displayed elsewhere) come to mind. The Swedish doctor in the book, at least, clearly doesn't want to accept that these children are reacting to their parents' asylum claims being rejected, their internalization of their parents' fear, etc.
A Mystery of Mysteries: The Death and Life of Edgar Allan Poe by Mark Dawidziak
reflective
medium-paced
3.25
First, as others have noted, Dawidziak doesn't really offer anything new, not even new informed speculation, on Poe's death. He agrees that "cooping" is most likely right as a proximate cause or contributing cause. He does add, which I hadn't thought of, that Poe quite possibly had tuberculosis, and that it possibly flaring up could have been a background contributing cause — but without noting (which we do know) that Poe had none of the major consumptive symptoms.
Second, although noting that Poe as an author has a number of short stories beyond his best-known ones, and that they might be good, doesn't actually discuss them much.
The only other things new to me were how readily Poe made enemies in the literary world and the number of Platonic, even infatuated, interests in women he had. The talk about Poe's humor had somewhat more emphasis than I might have heard before, but wasn't totally new.
Other than that, Dawidziak doesn't really plumb the depths on either Poe's death or life.
Second, although noting that Poe as an author has a number of short stories beyond his best-known ones, and that they might be good, doesn't actually discuss them much.
The only other things new to me were how readily Poe made enemies in the literary world and the number of Platonic, even infatuated, interests in women he had. The talk about Poe's humor had somewhat more emphasis than I might have heard before, but wasn't totally new.
Other than that, Dawidziak doesn't really plumb the depths on either Poe's death or life.
Because Our Fathers Lied: A Memoir of Truth and Family, from Vietnam to Today by Craig McNamara
challenging
fast-paced
2.75
First, the title is a bit weird. There's in reality only one father, singular, under discussion.
Second, I'm with other reviewers in noting Craig doesn't look at the family financial privilege that sent him to Stanford, let him traverse Latin America on a bike, etc., and helped him buy his farm.
Third, he doesn't look at what McNamara might have done wrong at the World Bank in promoting global neoliberalism.
Fourth, he seems very detached from himself in some ways. As much as his dad was from him (and from his own self).
This isn't bad, but, it's a revelation on Craig McNamara's relationship with himself as much as with Bob. And, it's not that long.
Second, I'm with other reviewers in noting Craig doesn't look at the family financial privilege that sent him to Stanford, let him traverse Latin America on a bike, etc., and helped him buy his farm.
Third, he doesn't look at what McNamara might have done wrong at the World Bank in promoting global neoliberalism.
Fourth, he seems very detached from himself in some ways. As much as his dad was from him (and from his own self).
This isn't bad, but, it's a revelation on Craig McNamara's relationship with himself as much as with Bob. And, it's not that long.
We Refuse to Forget: A True Story of Black Creeks, American Identity, and Power by Caleb Gayle
2.5
One whopper misstatement in the first page of Chapter 1. Sorry, Cochise, and no apology for the snark, but Indian Territory was part of the United States in 1861-65. The only Civil War battles fought outside the US were naval battles on the high seas. Or, if you’re basing this claim on the idea that Indian nations aren’t part of the United States? Also wrong.
There’s a bit of patronizing before that: The statement that many people who say “I’ve got some Indian” don’t know the history behind that.
Halfway through, misses the irony that the author of the Curtis Act was then-Congressman Charles Curtis, with his own convoluted ethnic history and self-relationship, though he reportedly largely disliked the final version.
In describing the Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood, he doesn’t note that a great number of American Indian tribes either reject blood quantum entirely or at a minimum don’t use it as the only definition of tribal citizenship. Also, though the book is just about Creeks, doesn’t note that tribes that are not federally recognized are ineligible for the certificate. This High Country News story offers a lot more insight on blood quantum issues, in <a href="https://www.hcn.org/issues/41.1/blood-quantum">this long piece</a>.
As for Cow Tom’s early history? All sorts of Black news and history sites say he was a slave. Gayle mentions that not at all.
As far as Chief Cox “booting” Freedmen? Racism isn’t necessarily the only explanation. Or even the primary one. Greed may be, given the larger “cleanup” of Creek rolls. See that link above on blood quantum issues. Not wanting to dilute federal dollars (or gaming dollars) is a big issue.
Finally, per other critical reviewers, Gayle does wander a fair degree.
There’s a bit of patronizing before that: The statement that many people who say “I’ve got some Indian” don’t know the history behind that.
Halfway through, misses the irony that the author of the Curtis Act was then-Congressman Charles Curtis, with his own convoluted ethnic history and self-relationship, though he reportedly largely disliked the final version.
In describing the Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood, he doesn’t note that a great number of American Indian tribes either reject blood quantum entirely or at a minimum don’t use it as the only definition of tribal citizenship. Also, though the book is just about Creeks, doesn’t note that tribes that are not federally recognized are ineligible for the certificate. This High Country News story offers a lot more insight on blood quantum issues, in <a href="https://www.hcn.org/issues/41.1/blood-quantum">this long piece</a>.
As for Cow Tom’s early history? All sorts of Black news and history sites say he was a slave. Gayle mentions that not at all.
As far as Chief Cox “booting” Freedmen? Racism isn’t necessarily the only explanation. Or even the primary one. Greed may be, given the larger “cleanup” of Creek rolls. See that link above on blood quantum issues. Not wanting to dilute federal dollars (or gaming dollars) is a big issue.
Finally, per other critical reviewers, Gayle does wander a fair degree.
The End of Tsarist Russia: The March to World War I and Revolution by Dominic Lieven
medium-paced
1.75
This book is a tough one to rate, and, since coming across The Storygraph and fractional star ratings being reality, it's the biggest hate I have for Goodreads and the Amazonoids behind it not having at least half-star ratings, even after the overhaul.
Specific to this book, it's right on 2.5 stars, and I hate being associated with people low-rating the book because they think it's boring. Anything but. But, I just can't give it 3 stars.
Let's dig in. And, this one is going to be long.
The End of Tsarist Russia
Having read some of his brother’s essays following the start of the Russia-Ukraine War, and always on the lookout for new WWI reading, I glommed this.
Interesting.
First off, as many other reviewers note, it isn’t about the end of Tsarist Russia at all. That said, the original edition, I think, and I know the original British one, had a different title.
Nonetheless, we do judge books by their covers, and that might be a quarter-star ding right there.
Now, the meat?
This is an interesting book in many ways. It’s in-depth in many ways. The flip side of that is that, when Lieven’s grinding an ax, that means you know it’s very deliberate.
And, yes, he does grind one big one.
First, in the very early pages, rather than Fritz Fischer’s “German war guilt” theory, or a “Serbian war guilt” idea, he seems to plump hard for an “Austrian war guilt” theory. Tosh. I know plenty about the 1903 coup that swapped dynasties in Serbia, Apis’ direct involvement in it, Pasic’s likely knowledge of the 1914 assassination plot and more. Even allowing for Conrad’s “Serbia delenda est” bellows, the idea of Austria war guilt as a primary cause of the war is rot.
This plays out at the end of Chapter 4, on the Austrian demarche related to annexation of Bosnia. He notes that Russia made clear in 1912-13 in the Balkan Wars that it wouldn’t accept having its back against the wall again, and that Berlin and Vienna listened, but did not in 1914. This too, at least in implications, is rot as an assassination (even given how little Vienna apparently actually knew about Serbian official and semi-official connections) is not the same as third-party warfare.
Second puzzler? A definitional one, around page 130. What is a “liberal conservative”? I assume Lieven is using “liberal” in its European sense, but still, there’s no definition. Such and such a person, whether in the Foreign Ministry, other government service, or outside, is described as such without explanation.
That said, it seems functionally semi-clear from context. These are the people who would have been in the Kadets party after 1905. (Although I am not sure about that.)
There’s lots of good in this book. A biggee is that not nearly all the professionals in Russian government, or formerly in it, were pan-Slavists or Slavophiles in the run-up to 1914. (Lieven says the two are different, and even distinguishes pan-Slavists from pan-slavists no capital, but says this book is not technical enough to dive into that.) These people distrusted “informed” modern Russian opinion, and in turn, they split into two. One branch wanted to focus on the Straits while setting aside the Balkans; the other wanted to focus on Asia while setting aside both.
In other words, we’re getting into a more nuanced, better backgrounded version of Sean McMeekin.
Later reading between the lines indicate that Slavophile stances would include the idea of “fair play” for Poles while pan-Slavism was more of the Russian Slavism is right, period.
Another issue rises up from Lieven later. All Russians have their names rendered in Russian spelling, ie, “Aleksandr” and not “Alexander.” But, “Wilhelm” is “William”? Given what I’ve noted above one could cite this as an example of historian’s bias and I think that’s plausible. I know that other British historians do it, too. Stop it.
Also of note in similar vein? The author doesn’t note the degree of family relationship to Vice Admiral Lieven, nor whether any family memoirs were used in this book.
Finally, a claim that Rasputin had no major influence on foreign policy before the start of war might be acceptable. (That said, Rasputin DID strongly urge Nicholas NOT to go to war; the fact that this argument failed could be, I guess, considered as proof of “no major influence.”) But making that claim after the war started? Tosh. Even before the war, his power to extract bribes argues for some influence. Also, the fact that Lieven makes this claim as an offhand statement further undercuts its likelihood of truth to me. Using military strategy knowledge to help bribers engage in inside trading on the Bourse is another argument against Lieven. And, above all, Rasputin encouraging Alexandra to encourage Nicholas in his neoabsolutism had its influence on Nicholas’ rule in general, and in the war, above all in Nicholas deciding to take direct command of the armed forces.
This cost Lieven a star by itself.
He also only mentions Apis and the Black Hand in passing. Worse, he does not mention at all Narodna Odbrana. He doesn’t mention Pasiç having likely foreknowledge of plot. He then claims that even had Serbia fully accepted the Austrian ultimatum, Vienna would have found an excuse for war anyway, a doubtful at best conjecture.
That’s another half-star, if not moe.
Other issues add up. And, we’re at 2 stars here. (May get 2.5 at StoryGraph. And, yes, I’m going to continue pushing it.)
It’s funny that Lievan calls MacMeekin “polemical.” He is himself, in his own way.
That’s as this book gets WORSE as it stumbles toward the finish line. Claiming the Ludendorff-Hindenburg dictatorship caused Germany to lose a war it “would probably have won” without them in charge is one of the most asinine comments I’ve ever seen in World War I historiography. But he makes it, on page 346. Pushing the renewal of submarine warfare, over Bethmann-Hollweg’s head, was a gamble, ’tis true. But, at this time, Nicholas hadn’t yet been toppled from the throne, let alone Kerensky replaced by Lenin. And, it wasn’t just the H-L duo who invested high potential power in sub warfare. As for the 1918 Kaiserschlacht? Necessary with the growing US presence; necessary to be won quickly, per how fast it was growing. As for the Hindenberg Program of a command economy? Tis true that the amount of horses removed from farms may have contributed to food scarcity in 1918, but this was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t moment and in no way lost the war.
And, the 2-3 pages before that show that Lieven should never write a word about military history.
He concludes by not only stressing Austrian war guilt, but shades of Fischer, throwing Germany in there as well.
The TL/DR summary? Everything here about Russian internal affairs is good. Everything outside of that is at best an unrevealing "meh" (with an exception or two) when purely Russian, but outside the Imperial bounds. Everything not Russian in this book is bad, often mendacious by omission, in my opinion.
Specific to this book, it's right on 2.5 stars, and I hate being associated with people low-rating the book because they think it's boring. Anything but. But, I just can't give it 3 stars.
Let's dig in. And, this one is going to be long.
The End of Tsarist Russia
Having read some of his brother’s essays following the start of the Russia-Ukraine War, and always on the lookout for new WWI reading, I glommed this.
Interesting.
First off, as many other reviewers note, it isn’t about the end of Tsarist Russia at all. That said, the original edition, I think, and I know the original British one, had a different title.
Nonetheless, we do judge books by their covers, and that might be a quarter-star ding right there.
Now, the meat?
This is an interesting book in many ways. It’s in-depth in many ways. The flip side of that is that, when Lieven’s grinding an ax, that means you know it’s very deliberate.
And, yes, he does grind one big one.
First, in the very early pages, rather than Fritz Fischer’s “German war guilt” theory, or a “Serbian war guilt” idea, he seems to plump hard for an “Austrian war guilt” theory. Tosh. I know plenty about the 1903 coup that swapped dynasties in Serbia, Apis’ direct involvement in it, Pasic’s likely knowledge of the 1914 assassination plot and more. Even allowing for Conrad’s “Serbia delenda est” bellows, the idea of Austria war guilt as a primary cause of the war is rot.
This plays out at the end of Chapter 4, on the Austrian demarche related to annexation of Bosnia. He notes that Russia made clear in 1912-13 in the Balkan Wars that it wouldn’t accept having its back against the wall again, and that Berlin and Vienna listened, but did not in 1914. This too, at least in implications, is rot as an assassination (even given how little Vienna apparently actually knew about Serbian official and semi-official connections) is not the same as third-party warfare.
Second puzzler? A definitional one, around page 130. What is a “liberal conservative”? I assume Lieven is using “liberal” in its European sense, but still, there’s no definition. Such and such a person, whether in the Foreign Ministry, other government service, or outside, is described as such without explanation.
That said, it seems functionally semi-clear from context. These are the people who would have been in the Kadets party after 1905. (Although I am not sure about that.)
There’s lots of good in this book. A biggee is that not nearly all the professionals in Russian government, or formerly in it, were pan-Slavists or Slavophiles in the run-up to 1914. (Lieven says the two are different, and even distinguishes pan-Slavists from pan-slavists no capital, but says this book is not technical enough to dive into that.) These people distrusted “informed” modern Russian opinion, and in turn, they split into two. One branch wanted to focus on the Straits while setting aside the Balkans; the other wanted to focus on Asia while setting aside both.
In other words, we’re getting into a more nuanced, better backgrounded version of Sean McMeekin.
Later reading between the lines indicate that Slavophile stances would include the idea of “fair play” for Poles while pan-Slavism was more of the Russian Slavism is right, period.
Another issue rises up from Lieven later. All Russians have their names rendered in Russian spelling, ie, “Aleksandr” and not “Alexander.” But, “Wilhelm” is “William”? Given what I’ve noted above one could cite this as an example of historian’s bias and I think that’s plausible. I know that other British historians do it, too. Stop it.
Also of note in similar vein? The author doesn’t note the degree of family relationship to Vice Admiral Lieven, nor whether any family memoirs were used in this book.
Finally, a claim that Rasputin had no major influence on foreign policy before the start of war might be acceptable. (That said, Rasputin DID strongly urge Nicholas NOT to go to war; the fact that this argument failed could be, I guess, considered as proof of “no major influence.”) But making that claim after the war started? Tosh. Even before the war, his power to extract bribes argues for some influence. Also, the fact that Lieven makes this claim as an offhand statement further undercuts its likelihood of truth to me. Using military strategy knowledge to help bribers engage in inside trading on the Bourse is another argument against Lieven. And, above all, Rasputin encouraging Alexandra to encourage Nicholas in his neoabsolutism had its influence on Nicholas’ rule in general, and in the war, above all in Nicholas deciding to take direct command of the armed forces.
This cost Lieven a star by itself.
He also only mentions Apis and the Black Hand in passing. Worse, he does not mention at all Narodna Odbrana. He doesn’t mention Pasiç having likely foreknowledge of plot. He then claims that even had Serbia fully accepted the Austrian ultimatum, Vienna would have found an excuse for war anyway, a doubtful at best conjecture.
That’s another half-star, if not moe.
Other issues add up. And, we’re at 2 stars here. (May get 2.5 at StoryGraph. And, yes, I’m going to continue pushing it.)
It’s funny that Lievan calls MacMeekin “polemical.” He is himself, in his own way.
That’s as this book gets WORSE as it stumbles toward the finish line. Claiming the Ludendorff-Hindenburg dictatorship caused Germany to lose a war it “would probably have won” without them in charge is one of the most asinine comments I’ve ever seen in World War I historiography. But he makes it, on page 346. Pushing the renewal of submarine warfare, over Bethmann-Hollweg’s head, was a gamble, ’tis true. But, at this time, Nicholas hadn’t yet been toppled from the throne, let alone Kerensky replaced by Lenin. And, it wasn’t just the H-L duo who invested high potential power in sub warfare. As for the 1918 Kaiserschlacht? Necessary with the growing US presence; necessary to be won quickly, per how fast it was growing. As for the Hindenberg Program of a command economy? Tis true that the amount of horses removed from farms may have contributed to food scarcity in 1918, but this was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t moment and in no way lost the war.
And, the 2-3 pages before that show that Lieven should never write a word about military history.
He concludes by not only stressing Austrian war guilt, but shades of Fischer, throwing Germany in there as well.
The TL/DR summary? Everything here about Russian internal affairs is good. Everything outside of that is at best an unrevealing "meh" (with an exception or two) when purely Russian, but outside the Imperial bounds. Everything not Russian in this book is bad, often mendacious by omission, in my opinion.
The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe by David M. Perry, Matthew Gabriele
0.75
Horrible book, and in addition, at least on Goodreads, many of the other bad reviews are as bad as the book. Haven't waded through them all here.
Brights book …. Flip side of Dennett’s Brights, it comes off as being!!! But, no historian has called all of the Middle Ages the Dark Ages. That said, if we look at the remains of the Western Roman Empire, the period 843-962, from the end of the Carolingian realm to the start of the HRE, could honestly merit the moniker. Those dates being the Treaty of Verdun ending the unitary Carolingian lands, then the start of the HRE.
So, yes, from the start, we’re going to be in the lands of strawmanning and cherry-picking. And, all in the service of Catholicism. Within Christianity, other worldviews need not apply. There’s added problems, as one reviewer noted, of this being written at CNN, or more apropos, History Channel level, but referencing academic debate over some of these issues.)
Interesting to see Myth of Martyrdom author Candida Moss blurb it when the intro talks about a bunch of Catholic saintly martyrdoms that likely didn’t happen. Those claims start, chronologically, in this book, with Peter in Rome, which certainly never happened.
(Speaking of, the whole book reeks of the Catholicism of its authors. While a modern evangelical half of fundagelical Protestants might have written a book like this, a traditional Lutheran, Calvinist or practitioner of Orthodoxy would not, nor would have a secular historian. And, yes, the word “reek” is deliberate.
UPDATE: Per a Google, after coming across <a href="https://mrambaranolm.medium.com/sounds-about-white-333d0c0fd201">this Medium piece</a> which was a rejected form of an LARB of the book, David Perry is Jewish. Could have fooled me. The book still reeks of Catholic apologetics. That said, having seen this person's Twitter feed on it, no, the LARB editors were right in rejecting the original.)
That said, while the book is largely pabulum, it’s NOT pabulum for the reasons Trumpy 1-star reviews claim. And, yes, their reviews reek of it, even as they ignore the reeking above because it doesn’t fit THEIR narratives. That then said, the portion of 1-starrers that call it out for "mansplaining" also miss the boat, though not quite as bad as the Trump-splainer types. This book is none of the above. It's Catholic apologetics, or Catholic-splaining, if you will.
OK, what follows is chronological notes.
Then, there’s other fun stuff, like the claim that the Western Roman Empire didn’t end when Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus. Oh, yes it did. And, yes, Rome became a sinkhole of population and other decline that was nowhere close to fully replaced.
Then, the claim in a chapter on Charlemagne that the HRE didn’t come until the later 12th century, not 962. Yes, the “sacrum” in Latin didn’t attach until Barbarossa, but any history book will tell you it began with Otto the Saxon.
Then, in the chapter on Vikings, I learned the Dneiper and Volga rivers are in western Asia! Neat! I halfway seriously wonder if this was a deliberate take, to de-Europeanize either Russia or Orthodox Christianity. Given that Slavic lands are nowhere further discussed, nor are details of the rise of Kievan Rus, I’m sure it’s deliberate.
There’s also a weird, and AFAIK, totally untrue claim that the Khazars later became Muslim. (I personally believe the bulk, tho not all, after the fall of the Khanate went on to become PART of Azhkenazi Jews. This is not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, contra the likes of Wikipedia, in one of its more iffy entries. The Ashkenazi/Sephardi split is itself a linguistic one, not an ethnic or sub-ethnic one, after all.)
At this point, two issues were weighing in my mind:
First, was I going to even make it to the finish line on this book?
Second, would it capture me enough to make that happen by turning out to be a 3-star book rather than something worse?
First Crusade chapter overlooks cannibalism at the Siege of Ma’arra. Besides the cannibalism, the intolerance of Frankish surrender terms go unnoted. BUT, the authors DO engage in a nice bit of “presentism.” As in, a LOT of it.
It does get better after that. Chapter on medieval Spain is good, though nothing to write home about. Ditto on the rise of France.
On the Albigensians, the authors don’t even mention the Cathars tie to the Bogomils in the Balkans. (Of course not; that’s in Orthodox lands.)
Petrarch as in inventor of the idea of Renaissance is mentioned, mainly a an object of polite opprobrium. The earlier 12th-century Renaissance is mentioned in passing.
Weirdly NOT mentioned by two Catholic authors is previous reformations before THE Reformation. These surely would have fit the “bright ages” idea.
So, too, would the conversion of the last portions of Europe, the Balto-Finnic lands. Not mentioned.
Other one-star reviews go into more depth. Several go into Trump-splaining, with their takes perhaps even worse than this book.
So, yes, from the start, we’re going to be in the lands of strawmanning and cherry-picking. And, all in the service of Catholicism. Within Christianity, other worldviews need not apply. There’s added problems, as one reviewer noted, of this being written at CNN, or more apropos, History Channel level, but referencing academic debate over some of these issues.)
Interesting to see Myth of Martyrdom author Candida Moss blurb it when the intro talks about a bunch of Catholic saintly martyrdoms that likely didn’t happen. Those claims start, chronologically, in this book, with Peter in Rome, which certainly never happened.
(Speaking of, the whole book reeks of the Catholicism of its authors. While a modern evangelical half of fundagelical Protestants might have written a book like this, a traditional Lutheran, Calvinist or practitioner of Orthodoxy would not, nor would have a secular historian. And, yes, the word “reek” is deliberate.
UPDATE: Per a Google, after coming across <a href="https://mrambaranolm.medium.com/sounds-about-white-333d0c0fd201">this Medium piece</a> which was a rejected form of an LARB of the book, David Perry is Jewish. Could have fooled me. The book still reeks of Catholic apologetics. That said, having seen this person's Twitter feed on it, no, the LARB editors were right in rejecting the original.)
That said, while the book is largely pabulum, it’s NOT pabulum for the reasons Trumpy 1-star reviews claim. And, yes, their reviews reek of it, even as they ignore the reeking above because it doesn’t fit THEIR narratives. That then said, the portion of 1-starrers that call it out for "mansplaining" also miss the boat, though not quite as bad as the Trump-splainer types. This book is none of the above. It's Catholic apologetics, or Catholic-splaining, if you will.
OK, what follows is chronological notes.
Then, there’s other fun stuff, like the claim that the Western Roman Empire didn’t end when Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus. Oh, yes it did. And, yes, Rome became a sinkhole of population and other decline that was nowhere close to fully replaced.
Then, the claim in a chapter on Charlemagne that the HRE didn’t come until the later 12th century, not 962. Yes, the “sacrum” in Latin didn’t attach until Barbarossa, but any history book will tell you it began with Otto the Saxon.
Then, in the chapter on Vikings, I learned the Dneiper and Volga rivers are in western Asia! Neat! I halfway seriously wonder if this was a deliberate take, to de-Europeanize either Russia or Orthodox Christianity. Given that Slavic lands are nowhere further discussed, nor are details of the rise of Kievan Rus, I’m sure it’s deliberate.
There’s also a weird, and AFAIK, totally untrue claim that the Khazars later became Muslim. (I personally believe the bulk, tho not all, after the fall of the Khanate went on to become PART of Azhkenazi Jews. This is not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, contra the likes of Wikipedia, in one of its more iffy entries. The Ashkenazi/Sephardi split is itself a linguistic one, not an ethnic or sub-ethnic one, after all.)
At this point, two issues were weighing in my mind:
First, was I going to even make it to the finish line on this book?
Second, would it capture me enough to make that happen by turning out to be a 3-star book rather than something worse?
First Crusade chapter overlooks cannibalism at the Siege of Ma’arra. Besides the cannibalism, the intolerance of Frankish surrender terms go unnoted. BUT, the authors DO engage in a nice bit of “presentism.” As in, a LOT of it.
It does get better after that. Chapter on medieval Spain is good, though nothing to write home about. Ditto on the rise of France.
On the Albigensians, the authors don’t even mention the Cathars tie to the Bogomils in the Balkans. (Of course not; that’s in Orthodox lands.)
Petrarch as in inventor of the idea of Renaissance is mentioned, mainly a an object of polite opprobrium. The earlier 12th-century Renaissance is mentioned in passing.
Weirdly NOT mentioned by two Catholic authors is previous reformations before THE Reformation. These surely would have fit the “bright ages” idea.
So, too, would the conversion of the last portions of Europe, the Balto-Finnic lands. Not mentioned.
Other one-star reviews go into more depth. Several go into Trump-splaining, with their takes perhaps even worse than this book.
Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with My Kids by Scott Hershovitz
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
4.25
Not great, but solidly good.
First, the idea that kids are junior philosophers, making allowance for their non-adult thought processes, is a good and sound one.
Second, this book is primarily about philosophy, not parental psychology, contra some low-star reviewers. It may be wrapped inside of what looks like parental psychology. And? It's readable. As is the best philosophy, like Camus novels or the dialogues of Plato or even more by Hume.
Third, the political sections in the middle? They're ultimately philosophical, too; morals and ethics is a branch of philosophy, after all. Arguably, political science is, too. After all, Aristotle said that man is an animal of the polis.
Now, a couple of dings.
In the first of the two political chapters, after correctly noting that sex is not gender and vice versa, Hershovitz uses the prefix "trans" as a noun. He's not alone, yes, but that doesn't fly in my Wittgensteinian linguistic world. Transgender? Transsexual? Sometimes one, sometimes the other? Which is it, Scott?
Later, in the chapter on "truth," he gets a philosophical (and sociological) issue wrong. "Was Beethoven better than Bach?" is different than other evaluative judgments he lists because it doesn't involve morals. It's aesthetics, and he knows better because he previously mentioned it as a branch of philosophy, and between philosophy and law, he presumably knows the old Latin maxim, De gustibus non disputandum.
First, the idea that kids are junior philosophers, making allowance for their non-adult thought processes, is a good and sound one.
Second, this book is primarily about philosophy, not parental psychology, contra some low-star reviewers. It may be wrapped inside of what looks like parental psychology. And? It's readable. As is the best philosophy, like Camus novels or the dialogues of Plato or even more by Hume.
Third, the political sections in the middle? They're ultimately philosophical, too; morals and ethics is a branch of philosophy, after all. Arguably, political science is, too. After all, Aristotle said that man is an animal of the polis.
Now, a couple of dings.
In the first of the two political chapters, after correctly noting that sex is not gender and vice versa, Hershovitz uses the prefix "trans" as a noun. He's not alone, yes, but that doesn't fly in my Wittgensteinian linguistic world. Transgender? Transsexual? Sometimes one, sometimes the other? Which is it, Scott?
Later, in the chapter on "truth," he gets a philosophical (and sociological) issue wrong. "Was Beethoven better than Bach?" is different than other evaluative judgments he lists because it doesn't involve morals. It's aesthetics, and he knows better because he previously mentioned it as a branch of philosophy, and between philosophy and law, he presumably knows the old Latin maxim, De gustibus non disputandum.
The Fate of Food: What We'll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World by Amanda Little
2.75
Too techno-optimist, and that's clear with reading the book 4 years after its writing.
The biggie? Lab meat, in even semi-affordable, semi-mass market quantities, is still just as much just around the corner as peaceful nuclear fusion. And, Little doesn't even try to do back of envelope number-crunching on its energy needs.
No. 2? Vertical farming. No, not all it's cracked up to be, and there's been stories about that.
I'm not a techno-pessimist. I AM a techno-realist.
Climate change discussions also didn't go beyond the bare bones. Reality? We know that many wild animals will run out of moving room. Let's look at domestic livestock. What if parts of sub-Saharan Africa get too hot for camel herding as well as cattle herding? Or climate change amplifies, say, wheat rust more quickly than gene technology can beat it down. The different respiration mechanisms plants use at different exterior temperatures and how this could affect food yields wasn't discussed.
There are small errors in the book, both related to and unrelated to the main subject, like the claim that Gihon's original "pipeline" led the unnamed Hezekiah to settle Jerusalem. Instead, it was settled thousands of years before a possibly fictional David captured it.
So, this is "OK," but no more than that.
The biggie? Lab meat, in even semi-affordable, semi-mass market quantities, is still just as much just around the corner as peaceful nuclear fusion. And, Little doesn't even try to do back of envelope number-crunching on its energy needs.
No. 2? Vertical farming. No, not all it's cracked up to be, and there's been stories about that.
I'm not a techno-pessimist. I AM a techno-realist.
Climate change discussions also didn't go beyond the bare bones. Reality? We know that many wild animals will run out of moving room. Let's look at domestic livestock. What if parts of sub-Saharan Africa get too hot for camel herding as well as cattle herding? Or climate change amplifies, say, wheat rust more quickly than gene technology can beat it down. The different respiration mechanisms plants use at different exterior temperatures and how this could affect food yields wasn't discussed.
There are small errors in the book, both related to and unrelated to the main subject, like the claim that Gihon's original "pipeline" led the unnamed Hezekiah to settle Jerusalem. Instead, it was settled thousands of years before a possibly fictional David captured it.
So, this is "OK," but no more than that.
Waco: David Koresh, the Branch Davidians, and A Legacy of Rage by Jeff Guinn
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.25
This is good to very good but not quite great as pop history, and OK-plus but not quite very good as semi-academic history. It’s also one of those books whose possible rating changed in my mind while writing up this review.
The good? First, Guinn gives a detailed, and accurate, history of Branch Davidian’s history, starting with the foundation of Adventism, then through Davidian’s start as an offshoot of traditional Adventism. Connecting Cyrus Teed to Koresh via Lois Roden getting his one book sent to the Waco-McLennan County Library. (I know Sean Sutcliffe from days of living in Marlin, Texas. I also from days of living in the Metroplex, know Carlton Stowers.) His idiomatic interpretation of “Messiah” as someone chosen by god for a specific purpose is also good, and probably assisted by biblical scholars who helped him.
His description of how ATF’s surprise was blown, not by ATF itself, nor by the Waco Trib’s start of a story series, but by a clueless KWTX cameraman who should have been fired if he wasn’t, is also good. So, too, is the backstory on why ATF pushed to go through with the raid even after local leaders knew cover had been blown. Later in the book, the description of differences between ATF and FBI in hierarchy, organization and lower-level autonomy is important.
Getting ATF people to talk, whether on the record or on background, is also good. That said, with two other new books out for the 30th anniversary, I don’t know if Guinn was any more successful on that than the other two authors.
Really good? His alternative 4 on how the fire started — neither FBI-deliberate (I reject that as he also seems to do), nor Branch Davidian-deliberate (the compound was too disorganized) nor accidental, but Koresh-deliberate, based on a literalistic interpretation of a “wall of fire” from Zechariah. OTOH, that assumes that under that much stress, that Koresh could have popped up such an idea is perhaps questionable.
Issues? James Tabor is arguably but NOT Unarguably an “esteemed religious scholar.” J. Philip Arnold isn’t even that. Tabor believes in a quasi-DaVinci Code David family dynasty theory of a Jesus movement, and also believes that the James ossuary, and others where he has gotten even more scorned, are “real” burial sites of Jesus’ family and disciples. Arnold seems to be some sort of quasi-Restorationist Xn. He was also flat wrong in the insinuation I infer behind his statement that Branch Davidian was entitled to First Amendment protection. Said protection does not include violating state child sex abuse or federal gun control law. Both were probably overly sympathetic. Guinn doesn’t address that, nor does he address the issue of whether Tabor and Arnold might have been not just sympathetic but so overly sympathetic that they thought they really could have gotten Koresh to surrender. I personally doubt that; Tabor seems like he might have been close to gullible on the issue and Arnold might even have inadvertently egged Koresh on, if allowed more contact.
Nor does he address the likelihood that FBI people were right and the promised exegesis of all seven seals would have become a stall tactic around seal 6 with Koresh saying, “God won’t give me more revelation.”
Also, even though he’s written a book about Jonestown, Guinn doesn’t try to draw parallels. Personally, by the end of the book, I was more reminded of Heaven’s Gate, though it, unlike Jonestown and Mount Carmel, did not end in a battle with government forces. Jonestown, though, had a number of people starting to become disillusioned before the denouement, whereas Heaven’s Gate, like Mount Carmel or even more, had all true believers.
That said, the epilogue, “Clive Doyle is Waiting” was good, illustrating him as the truest of surviving true believers. And it ends with him dying.
As did some people 2,000 years ago.
And, because I’m going to extend this review on my blog, I’ll end there.
The Song of the Cell: An Exploration of Medicine and the New Human by Siddhartha Mukherjee
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
The writing has become more focused than in Emperor of All Maladies (I've not [yet] read The Cell), which makes this book more solid right there. It's a generally good, generally linear trace of the discovery of the cell, then of types of cells, and into antibiotics in part one, that last section being foreshadowing for part three.
Part two looks at cells becoming organisms, with one chapter focused on IVF and another on cellular engineering, including fetal cellular engineering. Mukherjee does dip a couple of toes into ethics issues, but perhaps more could have been done. That's especially true with — and yes, they're not cells — gain of function research on viruses and the controversy over COVID-related gain of function research. (Yes, "we" the US did assist such research elsewhere, including WIV, contra the sophistically narrow definitions of what gain of function is that Fauci and Collins have proffered. But I digress.)
Part three is an in-depth look at an organ, if one will, though most people don't consider it as that — blood. It's very good.
Part four is a brief excursus into the pandemic. It should have either been expanded or dropped, and probably dropped. That's not only because viruses aren't cells (though the human response to them is cellular, etc.), but it interrupts the flow.
Part five looks more at organs, cell differentiation and related issues.
Part six concludes with looking at what we know today about stem cells and cancer, and possible linkages. Very good, with the best of speculative thought about some lines ahead on cancer treatment.
Part two looks at cells becoming organisms, with one chapter focused on IVF and another on cellular engineering, including fetal cellular engineering. Mukherjee does dip a couple of toes into ethics issues, but perhaps more could have been done. That's especially true with — and yes, they're not cells — gain of function research on viruses and the controversy over COVID-related gain of function research. (Yes, "we" the US did assist such research elsewhere, including WIV, contra the sophistically narrow definitions of what gain of function is that Fauci and Collins have proffered. But I digress.)
Part three is an in-depth look at an organ, if one will, though most people don't consider it as that — blood. It's very good.
Part four is a brief excursus into the pandemic. It should have either been expanded or dropped, and probably dropped. That's not only because viruses aren't cells (though the human response to them is cellular, etc.), but it interrupts the flow.
Part five looks more at organs, cell differentiation and related issues.
Part six concludes with looking at what we know today about stem cells and cancer, and possible linkages. Very good, with the best of speculative thought about some lines ahead on cancer treatment.