Books sah! Faahsands of 'em. Well, five, actually...

[matgb]

Meme time:

-Choose a book genre
-Choose five books from that genre
-Tell me why I should read them.

Nice'n simple. I pick history:

1. An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (or 2000 years of Upper Class Idiots in charge)--John O'Farrell

If you know absolutely nothing about English/British history, this would be a damn good place to start. It starts when Ceasar invaded, and stops when Attlee won 2000 years later. It takes the piss something chronic throughout, is very funny, and has a palpable anti-establishment bias. It is, by its nature, a summary of key events, but it does it well. The introduction and the first few paragraphs got me when we saw it in the service-station bookshop, so much so I didn't even apply my normal accuracy test (see below), but when I got to that bit it not only passed it, it did so with flying colours in a way I'm likely to try and quote at some point.

Also? I'm not, generally, a soppy bugger. I don't recall ever being moved to tears by a damn book before. O'Farrel's description of Dunkirk did it for me, and I don't even like WWII as a period (it doesn't count as history, it's within living memory, damnit!)

It's on offer in virtually every major chain bookseller at the moment, we bought it on the drive to conference, it really is a good book, and everyone should know at least the basics of the history of these islands.

2. The Glorious Revolution (1688--Britain's Fight for Liberty)--Edward Vallance

Pop quiz: When was Britain last successfully invaded?
If you said 1066, you are wrong. William I (of Normandy) landed with less men, on less boats, and with more justification than William III (of Orange) did 622 years later. That James II ran away from the battlefield leaving his army in the command of one of the greatest traitors in the history of England John Churchill who surrendered to William and swore fealty to him means it can be written off as a 'revolution', and there was an uprising across much of the country. But it was an invasion, and William's motives were entirely in the Dutch interest; England'd been at war with the Dutch several times recently (eg when we nicked New York from them or when they sailed up the Medway to burn the fleet while Charlie was shagging Nell), but he completely changed English foreign policy and we went to war with the French. Fortunately he died befor the real war got serious and John Churchill (I did say greatest traitor for a reason) got to go off and win it for us.

The Revolution led to the founding of the modern Parliamentary system. It gave us the Bill of Rights, the Acts of Settlement and the Act of Union, established that the Crown was a gift of Parliament and that Parliament was supreme. Also, due to William's complete lack of interest in domestic affairs saw the first signs of our current Cabinet system of government, and saw the first partizan elections with an attempt to organise election campaigns.

It is, to my mind, a crucial phase in British history, and this is an excellent primer into it.

3. Battle Cry of Freedom (The American Civil War) James M. McPherson

If knowing how Britain came to be the way it is is essential for any Brit, knowing how America came to be the way it is is essential for everyone. The American Civil War established how the US would be governed, it saw the change from these United States are to the United States is and established the primacy of the Federal Government over the States Rights. Oh, it also freed the slaves, sort of, but that was an issue, not the point.

This book won a Pulitzer prize. The New York Times said The best one-volume treatment of [the Civil War] ... It may actually be the best ever published. and it was probably right to do so. If you want to understand a lot more about how America is the way it is, this is a good place to start.

4. The long 19th century--Eric Hobsbawm

This is a bit of a cheat. Hobsbawm actually wrote three books covering the period, The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789—1848, The Age of Capital: Europe 1848—1875, and The Age of Empire: Europe 1875—1914, but you really need to read them all, and they were written as a set. His basic premise is that the 19thC started with the French Revolution, as that was a sudden and drastic break from the past that changed the face of Europe completely, and ended with the shooting of Franz Ferdinand in 1914, as that saw the end of the period and marked the beginning of the period of Total War.

He's a Marxist historian, of the school of marxism that pretty much rejected Soviet Russia and concentrated on the historiography. People matter a lot less than economic and political forces--the French would likely have revolted anyway, etc.

The modern world was created by the 19th Century, economically, socially and politically. Understanding it is probably a good thing.

5. John Stuart Mill (Victorian Firebrand)--Richard Reeves

I'm a Liberal. not some wishy-washy 'do-gooder' or ill-defined lefty that's scared of the word 'socialist' (I'm not, like Mill, I'm one of them too). Mill defined modern (British) Liberalism, he put into words the basic idea that freedom matters, that personal choice is important, that education is essential, that representative government is a Good Thing, that women can (and should be) equal to men.

I met the author at the Brighton conference last year, he spoke at a fringe debate on 'the greatest ever liberal', putting the case for Mill. The vote was open to all those who attended conference, but he was up against Paddy Ashdown promoting Gladstone and someone else pushing Lloyd George, both popular figures. Not only did he win the debate convincingly (against, I say again, Paddy Ashdown), but he won the vote convincingly too. He was back (at Bournemouth) this year, now as chair of Demos, and I was able to get to two fringe events he spoke at, both were excellent (although he did manage to alienate pretty much the entire room at the first, being deliberately provocative). In both, he made a strong case for Millian values (suggesting that, for example, the Post Office should be turned into a workers co-operative), and his easy debating style is indicative of his writing style.

The only reason I still haven't finished the book is because the hardback is so damned heavy I can't read it in the bath nor really in bed. But the parts I've read are excellent. Mill is the greatest ever Liberal. He's possibly the greatest ever philosopher. Reading him directly can at times be a bit of a chore (Victorian prose is for me), but reading about him by an engaging writer?

If you already think you're a liberal, you ought to have read this book. If you don't think you're a liberal, you should read this anyway, as I hold out hope to persuade you. Definitely recommended.

OK, that was longer than I expected it to be. ginasketch's meme got me geeking about both books and history. Which has got me writing properly again. I'll try to keep it up. Guess I'd better cut the bulk of the text then...

Comments

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

I'm not, generally, a soppy bugger

This is what is technically known as a lie.

I can't believe you don't like reading Victorian prose, though. Crazy boy. What do you think HG Wells and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle are? Fairies at the bottom of the garden?

[matgb]

There are exceptions to my generalisation, but they are previously unknown to me. Your fault.

But yeah, Wells annoys me at times, and even much morepopulist writing styles like Doyle does grate sometimes.

Not denying that they're good, just not necessarily for my general reading pleasure. Especially true of most philosophers--I cannot read Mar, but I can read on Marx with interest...

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

William I (of Normandy) landed with less men, on less boats,
FEWER!

You're right about the rest though. :D


1789-1914 was my A level History period (which annoyed me slightly as I wanted to at least go to 1921, but never mind).

[matgb]

Bah, pointless outdated grammar 'rules' that do little to aid clarity but do cause confusion in writers that should be better served by ignoring them.

(my next post may or may not be in Cameron's attack on the Spelling Society, but that's linked to a poll I need to finish research on).

I did 17thC for my A level (hence my initial interest in 1688), but did the latter for my Access course, both are of interest.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Not pointless, just slightly more effort than the average illiterate apparently wants to put in. :-p (Really, there are useful distinctions between words that make it worth preserving most of these rules, including the purely grammatical ones. It's probably a losing war against apathy and ignorance - there was a frustrating flamewar recently on a friend's LJ about the use of the word 'ignorant', usefully illustrating most of the commenters' ignorance in the process; none of them is stupid, by a long way, but apparently they can't tell the difference between ignorance and stupidity thanks to their usual imprecise use of either word. They're not synonyms!

But because lazy use 'skunks' (http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.usage.english/2005-07/msg00358.html) certain words, we then have to use 5 words to explain a concept where 1 word previously did the job neatly. It's worth railing against bad usage in general to avoid such rubbish.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

On the specific point of "less" versus "fewer", I think you're wrong. See this analysis on Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html), the main point of which is that "less" was fine for Alfred the Great, and for nine centuries thereafter, until Robert Baker opined that "fewer" seemed to him more aesthetically pleasing, at which point, for no apparent reason, it became A Rule You Must Follow rather than a matter of style and preference.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Interesting article, thank you. However, the writer does acknowledge that Alfred was using a case we don't have today, so it's at best a bit misleading to say 'fine for Alfred the Great'! He spoke a different language [Old English; it is emphatically NOT the same language as Modern English], so we can't really use 9th century evidence to justify or deny modern usages. Baker, on the other hand, while an individual with no particular authority (or indeed, desire to impose any, judging by that quote), is at least speaking our language, being post-1550. Several centuries of consistent use gives the rule enough validity IMO, even if it was not mandated by God some time before England existed, which some people seem to think is the origin of all English grammar and therefore it may never be challenged as It Be The Will Of Godde, or something.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

Several centuries of consistent use gives the rule enough validity

Consistent use? It's more like several centuries in which loads of people have used "less" in exactly the way you decry. Not the soundest basis for calling peope "illiterate".

Like many so-called grammatical rules, this really is just a shibboleth for class and authority.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

I didn't actually call anyone illiterate, nor did I decry the usage per se. If you aren't familiar with teasing, I'm sorry.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

I didn't actually call anyone illiterate, nor did I decry the usage per se.

*points upthread*

If you aren't familiar with teasing, I'm sorry.

I am familiar with all internet traditions.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Point all you like. Referring to 'the average illiterate' (in jest, hence the silly smiley) is not the same thing as calling any individual illiterate. Preserving most of these rules does not mean every single one of them must be adhered to rigidly - see the remark about English grammar not being the Will Of Godde.

Pedantry for the sake of it, because it makes for good and interesting debate, is one of the oldest and most used internet traditions.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

it makes for good and interesting debate

Evidently.

O'Farrell

[joeotten.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

I've read the first one, O'Farrell's history of Britain, and I agree with your recommendation. The humour keeps it alive, even if it is the same sort of joke over and over.

However towards the end, the Labour Party turns up, and he gets a bit soppy about it. So I've kinda put it down. Must finish it though...

Re: O'Farrell

[matgb]

Do think he spent a bit too much time on the forming of Labour compared to the other two parties, but to an extent that's excusable—ultimately a book aimed at a modern audience needs to pay attention to modern concerns, and the Labour party is undoubtedly significant.

To an extent the soppiness is justified, it's Labour's fault that we got down to the 'big two' parties post '45, but if you have to choose between them.

We're lucky, we've got better options now.

[pmoodie.livejournal.com]

I should definitely read more history. Thanks for the reccies! :)

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

I really must read number 5.

[wieselkind.livejournal.com]

This book meme is a bad thing. Makes me want to order books off amazon and books are so heavy.

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

*evil*

[davidnm.livejournal.com]

Interesting-sounding choices ... a meme that might add to my reading list, whatever next?

[(Anonymous)]

I recommend Forgotten Victory by Gary Sheffield. It is everything you want to know about WW1 but were too afraid to understand.

Plenty of others, but that's the main one.

[tiredstars.livejournal.com]

Skimming through and seeing "John Stuart Mill... I met the author at the Brighton conference last year" had me confused briefly.