The 'Currently Reading' Thread.

[Gus Mears]

Just finished up a biography from 1972 on the Duke of Wellington. What a lovely and horrendous man. The sense of duty he felt to the country was utterly beautiful, I felt like I was Thatcher a'top the Belgrano while watching a repeat of the Coronation when reading the bit when he formed a Government he knew would destroy him because the King wanted him to. Crocodile tears in my placid pre-sleep state. Then, there he is, a few chapters before, shitting on poor people and ramming the Catholics up the arse with paleoconservative fury. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Gus Mears

[HarmonicGenerator]

Just finished up a biography from 1972 on the Duke of Wellington. What a lovely and horrendous man. The sense of duty he felt to the country was utterly beautiful, I felt like I was Thatcher a'top the Belgrano while watching a repeat of the Coronation when reading the bit when he formed a Government he knew would destroy him because the King wanted him to. Crocodile tears in my placid pre-sleep state. Then, there he is, a few chapters before, shitting on poor people and ramming the Catholics up the arse with paleoconservative fury. 

 

Absolutely fascinating figure, the Duke of Wellington. It's not especially academic (and I say this mainly because I found it easy to read) but I recommend Peter Snow's 'To War With Wellington'. The guy was an incredible commander during the Peninsular War. Actually kind of reminded me of Vince McMahon a bit, in the sense that there's a kind of inability to delegate to keep himself in ultimate control for all decisions. And the impression he gave - like Vince does - of 'I won't make you do anything I wouldn't do myself' - by the way he was visible to the troops during battles rather than Napoleon hanging at the back doing his commanding. I know to an extent there's probably bias at work but I think the Wellington of that era's quite inspirational really. Definitely not a great Prime Minister, though! Have you been to Apsley House? Great place to visit if you're interested in him. 

[Gus Mears]

Nah, haven't been to Apsley, I never seem to go to that part of the city. But somewhere I would love to go at some point. Yes, he's a real duplicitous figure and it's really tough to end up forming a concrete view of him as a result, though I would err on the side of hero because his intentions were always good, though his intentions were politically arse-backwards on social legislation. 

 

On to a book called 'America in 1857: On the Brink', which is very good. Heavy reading, but it examines a period of American politics misunderstood. I wholly appreciate why most scholars basically just go straight to Lincoln and the Civil War, but this raises the point that basically, secession was inevitable whenever a Republican got in the White House, it just happened to be Lincoln. The examination of Buchanan's presidency is also quite interesting. 

 

Also, very good overview of the Dredd Scott slave case, which was a vital, vital moment in American judicial history and chimes with my view that the Supreme Court has always been partisan, despite the fact that some people think it's a modern phenomenon. It ebbs and flows in extent of partisanship throughout history, but this was a racist court, not following due procedure, in order to basically extend Southern state rights to slavery.

[Gus Mears]

Worse than Slough, It's Chairman Mao.

Just finished Mao's Great Famine by Frank Dikotte, which is on the Great Leap Forward and ensuing famine which killed about 45 million people.

A little covered period of history  in the West, but a very important one. Politicians, including many foreign policy wonks, having more of an understanding of China's history would be of huge benefit to the world. Mao really was one of the worst people to have ever walked the earth. 45 million completely avoidable deaths brought about by the megalomania of a man who thought China ought to arbitrarily match the industrial output of Great Britain within a ten year period. Much like the Soviet equivalent 5 Year Plans in the 30's, basically forced collectivisation, lying cadres and vanity projects meant that caused utter devastation.

This was only just over 50 years ago, which is astonishing. Plan on reading Dikotte's book on the Cultural Revolution next, which was in many ways Mao's revenge for the rest of the Soviet leadership eventually putting an end to his moronic Great Leap Forward. I repeat, Mao was an absolute fuck; the Cultural Revolution killed less people but was arguably even more brutal and mostly because he didn't like people telling him no. 

 

[Onyx2]

Michael Cole does book reviews. 

Never read any Vonnegut but hear lots of good things about this one. 

[Merzbow]

I just found a gorgeous 80's copy of The Cosmic Trigger by R.A.W, this is going to be fun. (not my pic but it's the exact same cover)

[SpursRiot2012]

Some holiday reading: the memoirs of James T. Kirk. It's not too bad. I feel like it's a little under detailed but the author has done a good job of writing in what I imagine would be the tone and style of Captain Kirk. 

[Chest Rockwell]

Do you hear Shatner's voice in your head whilst you're reading it?

[BomberPat]

Just finished Sisterhood of the Squared Circle; it's patchy, but mostly enjoyable. Early on, when it's recounting the Mildred Burke/Billy Wolfe era, it feels very informative and well-researched, and a fun read even to someone who knows the stories already, but it kind of tails off towards the end, with some later stars' write-ups reading a bit too much like an essay cribbed from Wikipedia - too much, "they did this, then they did this", which just got samey, and didn't really feel like it added anything to the wider context. Minor quibble, though. Would have liked a little more insight into the international scenes, and the politics thereof - there was a nice, but brief, write-up of how AJW operated, and a great chapter on the Crush Gals, but beyond that the Joshi coverage fell into that "this, then this" pattern, and women's wrestling around the rest of the world was pretty much summed up with a catch-all "and then there's the rest!".

 

Started reading Rotherweird by Andrew Caldecott yesterday. It's about an English town that's been purposefully cut off from the rest of the country since Elizabethan times, with no MP, and its own legal statutes, home to prodigiously smart children and advanced technologies, but where it's illegal to study the town's history before 1800. It's good fun so far - I've seen it compared to Gormenghast, and I can see why; characters have very Mervyn Peake-esque expressive names, and it has his ability to hop around thematically, so it feels like a serious mystery story one moment, high fantasy the next, and then farce.

[HarmonicGenerator]

4 hours ago, BomberPat said:

Started reading Rotherweird by Andrew Caldecott yesterday. It's about an English town that's been purposefully cut off from the rest of the country since Elizabethan times, with no MP, and its own legal statutes, home to prodigiously smart children and advanced technologies, but where it's illegal to study the town's history before 1800. It's good fun so far - I've seen it compared to Gormenghast, and I can see why; characters have very Mervyn Peake-esque expressive names, and it has his ability to hop around thematically, so it feels like a serious mystery story one moment, high fantasy the next, and then farce.

I really like the sound of that, but I found Gormenghast an absolute slog to get through. Is Rotherweird written in a Peake-ish style or will I be alright with it? 

[BomberPat]

22 minutes ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

I really like the sound of that, but I found Gormenghast an absolute slog to get through. Is Rotherweird written in a Peake-ish style or will I be alright with it? 

Far, far easier to read than Gormenghast. It's a very easy, quite light-hearted read - the Peake comparisons don't go quite that far.

I love Mervyn Peake, have written extensively on his work, and think the first two books of Gormenghast are amongst the best fantasy literature the UK has ever produced, but even I'd admit it's hard work. You really do need to commit a fair amount of time to just getting into the right head-space to tune yourself into his style.

But I think the whole concept of Gormenghast as this archaic, labyrinthine, oppressive structure obsessed with ritual, wouldn't come across nearly as well if it were written in a more conventional style, the language helps put you in that world. The only comparison that comes to mind is HP Lovecraft - his stories are made weirder still by the sort of staid, old-fashioned (even for the time) language he uses, they feel like something out-of-time and always at arm's length.

Getting off topic now, but a lot of serious scholars of Peake's work hated the BBC adaptation of Gormenghast for being too light and silly, but I bloody love it. Gormenghast is a very silly, very funny, often joyous, book in amongst everything else, and it would have been far worse for them to create something that looked and felt like Game of Thrones, only with random scenes of slapstick and farce in the middle than to create something silly with the occasional moment of pathos.

[Gus Mears]

Been a couple of months since last posting in here and I have been fulling me' britches full o' books as per.

Read a few old biographies (from the 40/50's) which I picked up for a quid each, the most interesting of which was on Sir Stafford Cripps (President of the board of Trade under Attlee). Have always found him an interesting figure as he was one of the key proponents of Christian socialism, which I find a fascinating ideological view. Didn't realise his heavy communications with the USSR during the start of WW2 until reading this. Some beautiful and antiquated language used too, which is always pleasant when reading old school biography.

Also went through Arthur Schleisinger's RFK biography. As with anything Schelisinger does, it's very good, although this does suffer from Schels' standard adoration of the Kennedy family and incessant need to crowbar in anything bad that Richard Nixon may have done in any way related to the subject matter of the chapter.

Went through a fair amount of my John Stuart Mill stuff which I haven't done in years, as if to prove to myself that moderate liberalism isn't completely dead. 

Just finished Frank Dikotte's book on the Cultural Revolution. It's not as good as the one on the Great Leap Forward, not as well thematically spaced out. Still, as good a view of a much ignored period of history as you will get. The malevolence of Mao was boundless, constant changing of factions, turning allies against allies, family against family. The only person comparable, and with a country with capacity to destroy like China, is Stalin in the 20th century. 

Made a trip to my beloved £1 book barn recently and got both of Henry Kissinger's, frankly peerless, memoirs. About three quarters of the way through the White House Years and it is a truly superb read. The depth of detail and reading of personalities makes foreign policy fun even if you aren't an international relations spod like I am. I'm not one for having political idols, but Kissinger would be one of my top ten in all likelihood. Not perfect at all, you can't be in foreign affairs, but his nuanced- almost too nuanced- understanding of the international system is unsurpassed by anyone alive today. Look forward to hitting part 2 soon.

Also started finally reading Robert Caro's critically acclaimed LBJ biographies. They are exceptionally good in fairness. The richness of context is welcome, I have a pet peeve against biography which skips over youth in a breeze. Younger years are often how you garner the best understanding of great political and historical figures, before their story is sanitised by stories, staff and the rest. As someone who finds Richard Nixon probably the most fascinating US president of the 20th century apart from Teddy Roosevelt, LBJ has Nixon's dark streak and then some. A brooding nature shines through very quickly and in another life he could easily have gone to crime and been remarkably good at it (well, apart from the elections he genuinely stole).

Also worth mentioning a top biography on Catherine de Medici by Leoni Freida. Much more to her than the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. She was essentially queen under 4 different Kings in one form or another. The incestuous and unpleasant nature of matchmaking in the late Medieval also very well represented, trying to shaft off your daughter to a brain damaged and sociopathic dwarf from Portugal 'because it's a good marriage for the family' a particularly good example. 

 

 

 

[Carbomb]

The fact that Kissinger has been walking around free since the 70s and not prosecuted for crimes against humanity is one of the main (among many) reasons I consider international law a bit of a joke, and the US a massive exercise in hypocrisy. He's openly admitted to what he did in Chile. If he weren't American, he might just be getting out of jail by now.

[SpursRiot2012]

I've never understood the almost universal love Kissinger gets from large sections of people. The guy did a lot of shitty stuff. 

[Gus Mears]

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

The fact that Kissinger has been walking around free since the 70s and not prosecuted for crimes against humanity is one of the main (among many) reasons I consider international law a bit of a joke, and the US a massive exercise in hypocrisy. He's openly admitted to what he did in Chile. If he weren't American, he might just be getting out of jail by now.

I agree with you that international law is subservient to great power, it's a key part of realism. I fundamentally believe that most international institutions just reinforce existing global power basically. 

In terms of hypocrisy, I'm assuming that you are comparing it to the actions of the USSR and the US rebuke of them? The USA, especially during the Cold War, did a lot of morally repugnant things. The Bay of Pigs fiasco, Iran coup, getting into Vietnam too deep and some more which I can see the strategic benefit of, but that I imagine you disagree with, such as the Cambodian Bombings. They are still significantly less guilty of crime than the USSR. Chile is not on the same level as quite a few Soviet actions in the same time scale. Hypocrisy is present, but you are not comparing apples and apples in any way, shape, or form in my view. 

These are a few of the policies enacted by the USSR between 1945 and 1973, a fair time span to choose considering the date of the coup. Outside of the generally shite nature of life under the USSR and the corresponding nonexistence of democratic rights, freedom and poor living standards. 

Antisemitism and the 'Dr's Plot'
Major food and housing shortages created by the Virgin Lands Campaign
Trying to starve the allied sections of Berlin thus causing the air drops for a year
Forcing people to stay in the East via the Berlin Wall
Annexing most of Eastern Europe after the war
The Brezhnev Doctrine:
-And related, the crushing of the Prague Spring 
-Plus the invasion of Hungary
Crushing the Polish revolt

That's off the top of my head in about two seconds and ignores the sort of tit-for-tat funding of various crackpot regimes that both the Western powers and Soviet Union took part in over many years. Also various other mutually unpleasant things such as international assassinations. 

I personally don't think Kissinger should be charged for crimes against humanity. By the letter of international law, he could be, but as you say, it doesn't work like that. As per my post earlier in the year about my political views I am in no way an idealist. I also think context, partly outlined above, is incredibly important. The entire strategic mindset of the US at the time of the coup was still basically still domino theory- one communist state forming creates others (yes, I know Allende was technically a socialist propped up by communists). Domino theory might sound like guff in hindsight, it certainly didn't at the time.

All of the events I outlined above had happened within 25 years of the 1973 coup, so it's a lot easier to remove ourselves from the incredibly tense atmosphere in which the Cold War was played. I've completely missed the rise of Castro and the Cuban Missile Crisis in that list, but it just feeds in to the total fear within consecutive US administrations of having a communist state on the doorstep. This also took place about a year or two removed IIRC from the Soviet Union for a second time trying to put nuclear missiles around Cuba (subs this time). 

This was the mindset when the decisions was made. Was the decision right in hindsight? Christ, no. Can I understand it? Yes. In the same manner that I can understand, while not agreeing with, the decision to annihilate Dresden for example during the war. I also think there is a danger of every time someone calls for Kissinger, Brzezinski or Blair to be charged with war crimes of hamstringing world leaders from making difficult international decisions. Decision, lest we forget, that often turn out to be right. Chile wasn't like this, but events take place at a far greater rate than international institutions and sometimes a decision simply has to be made. In the idealised world, perfect international law would stop politicians from making bad foreign policy decisions. I think it would probably stop them from making good ones too in certain circumstances and that scares me.

Spurs, it is very much in vogue to hate Kissinger. He's hated in many circles. It frankly isn't that simple, which is a point that can be made about the vast majority of the foreign policy world. These are a few of the things he did accomplish while in office to counteract the undoubted 'shitty stuff'.

Ended the Vietnam War (can debate tactical pros and cons of how it was done, fact is, he was key of getting US out of what seemed intractable)
Created the opening to China improving relations massively
Was integral to deliver Ostpolitik which was a boon for E/W German relations and wider European relations
Cooled the fallout of the October 1973 War
-This also, in my opinion, went some way to creating a situation where the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty was signed in 1979
Was vital to greater Cold War detente

I think the reasons why most academics do like Kissinger are several-fold. The fact that he himself is an academic and the fact he always talked to press helped build his profile. But the central reason is because a lot of his foreign policy successes were incredibly difficult and incredibly important. Temporarily ignoring the bad sides, he probably achieved more as Secretary of State than any other human being since WW2.

The Chilean Coup was awful. I also think a lot of the current hatred of Kissinger isn't just based on the Chile CIA archives opening a while back (plus that not entirely accurate Trial of Kissinger book) but also because a lot of people don't want to think about context at all. Time matters. Henry Kissinger is a flawed individual with a flawed record, he created a lot of hurt in the world, as has anyone dining at the top table of international diplomacy during the Cold War. He may have created more than many on the US side, although I do think the specific dislike of him is somewhat odd when you look at other comparable figures. He also improved many lives. The truth is likely somewhere between hero and villain, as is often the case, but I totally dispute the idea he was a  shit SOS (not put forward by Carbomb in fairness) and that all he did was cause harm. It's totally inaccurate. 

Edited July 5, 2017 by Gus Mears