I read Davies' history of Europe and hated his style, which I found pompous and arrogant. I remember he used new names for various cultures, which, God-like, he had made up himself, with no mention of their actual names, because he had decided that you and I couldn't handle it. We were only going to screw things up with our prejudices if he was straight with us, and of course, only Professor Davies' prejudices are valid in Professor Davies' history class. I also read his (even worse) Rising 44, about Warsaw's doomed attempt to throw the Nazis out before Stalin's armies could get there (and get them). That turned out to be a load of fashionable Yank hatred, with prejudices, once again, not to be questioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
Davies' books seem to me to be the product of a historian whose academic bottom had swollen to the point that he could no longer really do history. I was likewise turned off by Bloom's lonely self-monotheism (although I know our LitNet brothers and sisters seeking advanced degrees are not allowed to utter such heresy); but at least Bloom is only a literary critic. Pretending that one's opinions constitute a kind of dogma comes with the turf in that field; but a historian is supposed to question orthodox ideas. Seeing how the picture changes if we move a few puzzle pieces around is really all there is to the field. Davies is willing to play that game--making past orthodoxies illegitimate to even speak of--as long as you accept his own version of orthodoxy without doubt.
So do what you like, Clopin, but as the Pope of Heterodoxy, I grant you preemptive absolution never to go back to Davies. And I can almost recommend a better history of Europe. It's "almost" because I haven't actually read it myself, although I own a copy and it keeps whispering my name. The book is Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy by Brendan Simms. Simms is a young Cambridge professor, and a global-strategic thinker, as well as the academic equivalent to a neocon (so his ideas would be highly challenging to yours--but in a healthy way). I read his Three Victories and a Defeat, a political and military history of 18th century Britain, that was one of the best histories I have ever read. Simms' Europe is long, but not as long as Davies', and I would bet the farm is articulately argued and not (as you said of Davies book) "dense." It also covers a slightly different time range (1453-2013). If you have the intellectual confidence to examine things in the light of new ideas (you don't have to agree with them), then you may want to try Simms. Trying out new ideas is, honestly, all reading history is good for.
The answer to the question for me is 0% for around 30 years.
How many "true crime" books have you read in the last year or so?
