Why's it good? Well, like the best history books it brings the air of authority and also self-reflexivity, that sense you can trust the author. Which is not what historians are supposed to say, but there you go. And there's not much else written in English on the subject (although the Cambridge Concise History is brilliant in its own way).
Structurally, it works very well, with the narrative placed deftly after the bulk of the analysis. If there is a fault, however, it lies with the revisionism inherent in such a task. Constantly, we are told, things weren't as bad as all that, looking on the other side, we can see a durability of tradition, or a flexibility of the szlachta, etc. Fine, but becomes something of a rhetorical tick
Meanwhile: two TV shows - Mistresses, which is trying a bit too hard, and seems convinced that people are both very nice and devious at heart (which may be true), and Mad Men, which is making me want to get a sharp suit and tie. And possibly fix a strong drink.
Next up: Bolano, 2666. Although given its length, this may be some time.
No comments:
Post a Comment