Absolute classic. The drawing style is gorgeous, Kelly worked at Disney and you can really feel the animation style/influence on his line-work (fluid,Absolute classic. The drawing style is gorgeous, Kelly worked at Disney and you can really feel the animation style/influence on his line-work (fluid, energetic, precise). Regarding technical proficiency, this has to be one of the all-time best drawn newspaper cartoon strips imo. The art is detailed but not asphyxiated by over-drawing, so it strikes a great balance.
The writing is also phenomenal, I was actually quite surprised to see how well a lot of the humor and writing hold up. Lots of fabulous gag humor and clever writing in this volume. Albert the Alligator is prob my favorite, he's so ridiculous in the best of ways.
"A duller piece of information has not come my way since Christmas 1936." That line just kills me! (and the look of dumbstruck realization on Albert's face in panel 3 is hilarious too)
I was told that Walt Kelly was very influenced by George Herriman's classic Krazy Kat comic strip. And in turn, Kelly had a huge influence on a lot of big-time comic strip artists, notably Bill Watterson (and also if I recall correctly the guy who did Bone).
I plan on reading the 2nd volume released by Fantagraphics. I'm curious to see how the later political satire work holds up, imo political humor is very tricky and often times ages poorly (not to mention the political/historical context of the humor can be lost on modern readers). But we shall see! Plus, when I look at samples of the strip, I tend to prefer the earlier style of drawing vs how the later drawings look. Just my personal tastes.
Recommend for fans of comics, comic strips, humor, whimsy, etc....more
Interesting to read thru the reviews on here, some people love this and others absolutely aren't into it.
Cyril Pedrosa is one of my favorite comic arInteresting to read thru the reviews on here, some people love this and others absolutely aren't into it.
Cyril Pedrosa is one of my favorite comic artists, and this is one of my all-time fav comic works. He works with a particular stylization which you see quite a bit in contemporary French comics, but he has his own unique visual aesthetic working within that stylistic range. Personally I love this type of stylization, and the art is of the highest quality. The linework is gorgeous, magnificent compositions (love how he draws trees and buildings; the patterning is awesome), and the color-work is amazing. But I can see how it might not be everyone's tastes.
Cool story as well regarding inheriting a throne, getting exiled, medieval power struggles, etc. Fortunately this one has been translated into English, so accessible to the English-speaking audience. ...more
These are classics in the Franco-Belgian style of the 50s and 60s. Soooo good, the drawing is magnificent, especially Tillieux's car scenes. You can tThese are classics in the Franco-Belgian style of the 50s and 60s. Soooo good, the drawing is magnificent, especially Tillieux's car scenes. You can tell he LOVED cars given the attention to detail and great effort he puts into those scenes, the car chase and action scenes are just phenomenal. And the stories themselves are quite fun and well-done, but for me it's the drawings that enchant me the most :)
And I really like these collected volumes, usually collects 4-5 individual volumes together. It's a little more practical to read the collections rather than trying to track down individual volumes which can be a hassle, especially if you are outside of Europe. (but the collections are in French so unfortunately not accessible to much English-speaking audience)
I don't think there has been much translation of Tillieux's work into English, which is a pity. Although Fantagraphics did release one volume about 10 years ago but I don't think they continued, maybe because the sales on that one translated volume weren't so great? the Franco-Belgian stuff does not seem very popular in the US far as I can tell. I think the style and sensibility of these works are not very appealing to most of the US comic's audience? I don't really know. But if you are into comics, def recommend checking these out!...more
Wow. What a phenomenal writer. Has the elements of a grotesque fairy tale, and so lovingly written. As I was reading the story, I kept thinking the wrWow. What a phenomenal writer. Has the elements of a grotesque fairy tale, and so lovingly written. As I was reading the story, I kept thinking the writing and imagery are unbelievable, and the precision of language is ridiculously good. Poetic. Turns out Ducornet is also a poet (and an artist). Which makes perfect sense given her writing style, which is very visual, finely crafted, and precise.
The story is bizarro-world, taking place in 1880s rural France (I think 1880s). A fantastic mix of the profane, the arcane, and the sacrosanct. The "bad" characters are wonderfully hateable (like Dickens, Ducornet makes fabulously caricatured villains).
Charlotte is the protagonist, a young girl with a “stain,” a rabbit-like marking on her face. We see her adventures as she goes to a convent, along with her various friendships and experiences that culminate in a bloody finale. Hints of Red-Riding Hood, except way weirder, way more #$%#’d up. Coming of age story? Kinda? The sweet and the vicious are juxtaposed consistently throughout the story.
I love the creativity of the writing, the story was honestly quite good, bizarre and clever, but it’s the writing itself that stands out.
I laughed so hard at this phrase, never heard of someone’s bunghole referred to as a “cyclopean nether-eye.” Which tbh is a hilariously good description.
A few passages and quotes I enjoyed:
“Two months have passed and the winds of November howl around St.-Gemmes like packs of famished wolves, as in the forest the scattered beasts themselves, lean survivors of a happier epoch, ululate beneath the racing moon.”
“Her pain--cyclical in the early hours--grew constant towards night, a raging moon orbiting within her, a drumming heart bristling with thorns.”
“How many times throughout the long months of her convalescence has she seen the walls buckle and tear as the Mother of God swims into her room as quietly as an undulating jellyfish to show her the globe of the world in miniature, its lapis lazuli oceans and chalcedony continents spinning in the billowing folds of her mantle as upon clouds?”
“But as she stood impotent with fear, a match was struck from within the room, a kerosene lamp lit and a face bloomed forth like a moon in the darkness.”
“In a flash the train dissolved as with unutterable grace the hare vaulted and bounded alongside the tracks in electrifying leaps--arcs of raw energy crackling like hoops of fire as they struck the air.”
Can’t wait to read more of Ducornet’s work, this was my first book of hers.
Random observation. Nacreous (def: mother of pearl color): Nabokov abuses the hell out of this word (as he does a lot of other French words which he jams into his writing). But it’s in reading Nabokov that I got tuned into how much certain writers with French knowledge weave French rooted words into their English. Ducornet only uses nacreous once at the end of the book, but she is obviously well-versed in French and French culture which can be noticed in some of her word choices....more
A magnificent coming of age horror story. Some parts reminded me of Stephen King’s books, especially IT.
The story is centered around a young misfit nA magnificent coming of age horror story. Some parts reminded me of Stephen King’s books, especially IT.
The story is centered around a young misfit named Will. Janz does a wonderful job bringing Will to life, he is sympathetic and you can’t help but root for him. Sure, the story features quite a few classic tropes like a young kid who gets bullied and comes from a tragic situation. But it’s those type of underdog stories that I find oh so fun, and sometimes it doesn’t matter if it’s a common trope so long as it’s well done.
The story featured lots of winding twists and turns, never boring. Everything flowed, just right, great pacing. And some of the reveals I should’ve seen coming (but I didn’t).
Really hoping the author continues this series (damn cliffhangers!). I loved the characters and want to see what happens to them (that’s when you know you are into a series!). ...more
Going into this book I was not sure what to expect. I hadn’t read an older classic in some time, and was leery that it might prove boring and overly, Going into this book I was not sure what to expect. I hadn’t read an older classic in some time, and was leery that it might prove boring and overly, well... sentimental. But it wasn't boring, at least for me. Really got into this one, loved it in fact. But you have to be down for a lot of emotional musings (and willing to put up with the constant desire to punch the main character in the face).
The main character, a youth by the name of Frederic Moreau, is an absolutely frustrating character with overwrought emotions and selfish to the bone, but that’s the point. The dynamic of relationships and his inability to transcend his personal limitations is fantastically executed. While he is a product of his time, given his money and societal position he has the luxury to jack around all day, I do think there are parallels to contemporary society and problems we face: namely young people facing the existential dilemma of lack of purpose. So in this way, I do think many contemporary readers could connect with the problems of Frederic.
Trying to counter his listless existence, Frederic forms a fixation on Mme Arnoux, akin to idolatry. This love interest becomes his whole life’s purpose. He tries to give this love a magical ethereal sheen, but I saw this love as paper thin and a mask for his life’s much deeper problems and lack of fulfillment. Today, a lost youth can get ensorcelled by extremist movements (and in the book, many of Frederic’s friends do, because like him many of them are lost in their own ways and trying to fill the void). But for Frederic the path is this totemic idealization of a woman. Frederic is so obsessed, his inability to find inner peace pushes him to chase after this idealized external source like a mad dog, believing that realizing this love will finally grant him happiness.
Frederic inhabits the world of French high society. The book presents a harsh view of this world and its denizens, who come across as soulless and petty (which I don’t doubt is relatively accurate!). So many of the characters and people Frederic associates with are vipers, each with their own designs and manipulative tactics. Petty schemers, willing to opportunistically cloak themselves in whatever politics will best suit their momentary interests. Willing to backstab their friends the minute it can serve their agenda. Frederic does this as well. I can’t help but feel Flaubert had a pessimistic view of the world and people in general. Nevertheless I found myself rooting for Frederic throughout, hoping he’d find a way to transcend his personal limitations.
Many of the characters are searching for two things, love and money, sometimes wanting the latter as a means to achieve the former. There are times when some of the characters, even Frederic, attain a type of honest decency when they are showing their true emotions in their search for a companion. But in the end, I found most of the characters, including Frederic, to be highly unlikeable. (guy needed a good kick in the ass to set him straight!)
The historical aspects are nicely woven into the story and feature some amount of internal French politics of the time. It’s not too heavy and works well as a window into this particular time and place in French history and society.
It’s funny, because I can’t help but think of this novel as very “French,” especially regarding how it treats emotions and the minutiae of romantic feelings. The obsessiveness can strike one as silly and ridiculous, and I think a lot of readers might find it off putting because the obsessiveness can read as bizarre and archaic. But it worked for me because the problems faced by the characters are the same problems many face today: how to find meaning in this world, especially when the backbone of what holds society together (gov, religion, community, etc) has broken down or is constantly shifting beneath our feet (19th century France being turbulent times, but our own as well). And in this turbulence individuals find various refuges in what I'd call "false gods," whether it be ideologies regarding art (Pellerin in this book), politics (most of the characters in this book), idolatrous love (Frederic), etc... and tragically subsume our identity into these ideological cul-de-sacs where we end up asphyxiating our spirit....more
Along with It, probably one of my favorite Stephen King books. This was a great read. Fantastic storytelling and I love the psychological aspects of tAlong with It, probably one of my favorite Stephen King books. This was a great read. Fantastic storytelling and I love the psychological aspects of the characters. The careful and paced revealing of Jack's background help us understand his impending metamorphosis, grounding his disintegration with a believable psychological framework. My favorite horror generally has foundations in real-life problems and personal struggles of the characters (like Netflix's The Haunting of Hill House). The horror aspect can be an initial catalyzer for the characters' conflict, and/or can be a great prism to delve deeply into those characters' psyches and their personal struggles. But I do love the supernatural aspects as well. I especially liked the hedge-animals, those were cool and terrifying!... wish they could have included that part in the movie version but probably a bit too tricky in regards to CGI at the time.
Plus I just love the premise. Being stuck out in the middle of nowhere in some giant creepy hotel (with a dark past) for a very long period of time with an increasingly unstable partner (who exhibits violent tendencies) is pretty scary! maybe because I've watched the movie too many times since I was young I have imprinted the expectations of horrible things happening in these kind of places!
My main quibble was how the character Hallorann was depicted. There is the magical black man aspect which is such a common trope that it's hard to only beat up one writer for it. But it's the constant swirling racial aggression around Hallorann that seems excessive, pointless, and tacked on for no discernible purpose. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, but I mostly found it distracted from the story.
This is a book about the Vietnam War, following 2nd lieutenant Waino Mellas and his fellow soldiers. It is grim, gruesome, intense, touching, and moreThis is a book about the Vietnam War, following 2nd lieutenant Waino Mellas and his fellow soldiers. It is grim, gruesome, intense, touching, and more. I had the feeling things might get intense based on the opening sequence of a soldier dealing with a leech burrowing its way into and inside his private parts. That's ominous. I also didn't know leeches could do that.
The writing is excellent, but most impressive to me was the dialogue. There are a diversity of characters depicted, and I felt Marlantes did them justice, captured their essence via dialogue that felt sharp, real, true. And via the dialogue, he seems to paint an accurate picture of the race and class dynamics of the US's fighting force in Vietnam. The relationships between the characters was also revealing and well-done, capturing the complexities of different people relating (and sometimes not) to one another.
I haven't read many books on the Vietnam War. I actually decided to pick this one up as I was watching the recent PBS Vietnam War Documentary. Marlantes was one of the interviewees and he struck me as an interesting person, and in looking him up I discovered he was a writer. Can't tell you how happy I was to stumble across his work.
The thing that's struck me with a lot of the WWI memoirs I've read, and this book falls into this as well: they showcase wars where many soldiers lost complete trust in their superiors and lost their conviction in regards to the purpose of the broader mission. And in those cases, war takes on an even greater absurdity, curdling into a Kafkaesque hell (moreso than it already is at base level). The loss of purpose makes everything all the more maddening.
In this book the moment that best captures this: superiors want to capture a hill. Demand the soldiers capture a hill. After much intense fighting, many losses, the hill is finally taken from the enemy. Shortly thereafter the superiors order it to be abandoned. Capturing the hill as it turns out served no strategic purpose, merely meant as a means to increase body count (one of those ridiculous metrics used in Vietnam) and add a feather on the cap of the superior running the mission but otherwise completely pointless. And then some time later, sometimes weeks, months, soldiers are once again sent to capture that very same hill. They capture it again, and it is the same story, they are once again ordered to abandon it... This circular absurdity is one of those stories that keeps popping up with the Vietnam War....more
I've been working my way through a variety of the Warren catalogue (Vampirella, Creepy, Eerie). I guess a lot of this you could kind of classify as puI've been working my way through a variety of the Warren catalogue (Vampirella, Creepy, Eerie). I guess a lot of this you could kind of classify as pulp horror. What's amazing is the quality of the art (of course there is variation b/c they used a lot of different artists throughout the years) but overall it maintains a very high level imo. The work is pen and ink, which is perfect for the material and adds a sense of gloom and ominousness. This volume features many incredible artists including Alex Toth (sense of design is superb, I'm looking forward to reading his comic Bravo for Adventure), Al Williamson, covers by Frazetta, Reed Crandall (very tight style), Steve Ditko, Wally Wood (plan on reading his comic Cannon soon), etc etc. For me it is fun to discover all these various artists from this period, opened up an era of comics and illustration that I didn't know much about.
Quite a few stories are written by Archie Goodwin who was the engine behind Warren (at least in this time period, mid 60s). I tend to enjoy his stories. Some pieces are more clever in terms of twists and turns than others, some are a bit basic but in general I enjoy the ride because the stories do a good job of putting you into these dark gloomy atmospheres. There is a magic to the stories, the worlds they inhabit, there's a rawness (and often great imagination) to it that works well and the artwork brings it to life in such magnificent ways. I do recommend these but def will not be to everyone's tastes (but what is?!)....more
Absolutely gorgeous comic. Color schemes are low contrast, subtle, and so beautiful! has a print-making quality. The linework is organic but highly teAbsolutely gorgeous comic. Color schemes are low contrast, subtle, and so beautiful! has a print-making quality. The linework is organic but highly technical, mesmerizing. The style reminds me of Moebius, and yet stands out as different (the linework and mark-making being more organic as mentioned).
The story is centered around nature, and cycles of life including death and decay. Not too many words, which works well with the drawings and themes. The visuals do a lot of the heavy-lifting.
For anyone interested in the craft of drawing I highly recommend this. Even if the story isn't up your alley the sheer visual brilliance is worth checking out.
Probably one of my favorite contemporary artists. I hope she makes more comics!...more
Excellent survey book, mostly focusing on a couple of generations of Spanish comic book artists: 50s/60s golden age and 70s/80s. Many of these artistsExcellent survey book, mostly focusing on a couple of generations of Spanish comic book artists: 50s/60s golden age and 70s/80s. Many of these artists worked in the Spanish and UK girl comics scene and the US horror comic scene.
I first discovered some of these Spanish artists like Esteban Maroto (one of my favs) when I was reading thru some of the 70s collections of Vampirella/Creepy/Eerie. Published by Warren, this publication in the 70s tapped a Spanish agency for a lot of their comics' illustration, hence an influx of Spanish artists into those aforementioned publications. I was so impressed by those Spanish artists, wanted to learn more, tracked this book down, which in turn helped me discover a bunch more fabulous Spanish comic artists.
The book features a lot of imagery, both comic pages and other illustrative work (book covers, posters, etc). Quite a few of these artists did both comic pages and varying other types of illustrative work (like Jose Gonzalez and Angel Badia Camps for instance).
Lovely wide-ranging survey, some of my favs featured in the book: Trini Tinturé, Jordi Longaron, Angel Badia Camps, Esteban Maroto, Jose Ortiz, Jordi Bernet, Enrique Montserrat, Luis Martinez Roca, Jose Gonzalez, etc etc....more
One of those seminal touchstones from my childhood that I still connect with today. Anytime I read this it automatically makes me happy!!! This seriesOne of those seminal touchstones from my childhood that I still connect with today. Anytime I read this it automatically makes me happy!!! This series had a lot of influence on me, in various ways (it took me many years to realize this btw). I love the art, wit, humor, devious wryness, cultural critique, imagination, humanism slyly mixed with cynicism, the whimsy. Watterson merges a beautifully skilled visual style with brilliant comedic timing and writing. Apogee of the comic strip here imo. An incredible 10 year run, and he could have kept it going for much much longer but didn't want to grind the thing to dust and become repetitive plus I think Watterson got super sick of dealing with the constraints of newspapers and the increasing shackles and marginalization of comics in that medium...
And on a side note I find it fascinating to contrast the careers of Watterson and Charles Schultz. Great talents, interesting to compare the creative decisions/evolutions in their work but also the business/financial/brand decisions. Not necessarily saying either is right or wrong but the juxtaposition showcases some of the dilemmas and choices that face creators (especially issues facing comic artists of that particular era but certain issues still hold true today)....more
What an amazing novel. Beautifully crafted, I love the narrative, with the characters standing in as avatars for ideas, and interplay with symmetry anWhat an amazing novel. Beautifully crafted, I love the narrative, with the characters standing in as avatars for ideas, and interplay with symmetry and contrasts between the various characters and ideas. Easy to mess up such a dynamic by rendering it too simplistically, but I think Hugo infuses a great level of nuance and subtlety to the enterprise helping ensure his novel doesn’t turn into a 1-dimensional parody.
Personally I love the stylization of the writing, lyrical and poetic, and so much fantastic imagery (really this part is just awesome!). Sometimes the 19th century novel goes a bit bonkers with meandering descriptions of geography, place, customs, objects. This can be kind of obnoxious, but this book only has a few such moments and I really don’t mind as the quality of the writing and story are too good. But these meanderings in the 19th century novel are just one of those things I try to buttress myself against, I usually don’t mind so much but sometimes it is an avalanche of words that doesn’t advance plot or character (at least doesn't seem to in my eyes) and try as I might it can break my patience. Like I said though, this book only has a few such moments, and usually when this is happening it involves a broader metaphor that seems to make sense for developing the story and message of the book.
This story takes place with the historical backdrop of the French Revolution year 1793, as the Terror is getting under way. It pits two opposing forces, revolutionary and reactionary. Progressive vs traditional. Duality is featured throughout the book. And yet there is nuance to the political analysis and views. And the historical background was very interesting and informative for me (some of the interesting alliances including reactionary alliance between nobles-rural poor/paysans-catholic elements vs revolutionaries emanating from various segments of city society. Of course this wasn't all cut and dry, but there were interesting linkages going on, and internecine struggles for supremacy between the subgroups on each side). The story seems to capture an essence of the times, intertwining legend with history and in doing so approaching a kind of truth that can be hard for one or the other to achieve on its own. This seems to be a theme with Hugo, or at least a manifestation of his philosophy, by combining legend (story) with history we can approach a greater truth. But this is the first book of his I’ve read so I can’t make a strong statement on that, just a guess and intuition.
Hugo strikes me as a humanist who likely had deep sympathies for progressive ideals but he also fairly represents how high ideals can lead to the greatest crimes, with idealists leveraging the excuse of noble ends to justify execrable means. Sidestepping accountability and responsibility because one’s ideals are so noble and just. This critique is applied to both reactionaries and revolutionaries in this story as we see various characters in both camps guilty of this, some of whom stoop to the lowest basest most cynical self-serving justifications for their commitment of crimes against their fellow man. But there is nuance and subtlety, both in the writing and also the representation of the characters. Some characters are presented in a more favorable light than others, but never as pure black or white entities. The moral dilemmas the characters face are great, each individual is anchored by their various strain of idealism. These ideals get smashed and tested against the vortex of reality with crosscurrents tugging the individuals this way and that, each struggle further revealing inner character and nuance of each person...
I would recommend this book for two reasons: first off the magnificent quality of the writing and storytelling. 2ndly the fascinating historical backdrop and information in this book that seems to capture the essence and complexities of this particular historical period. And I could add a 3rd: experiencing Hugo and his sublime sensibility and ideas.
Cannot wait to read more. I’m thinking Les Mis, this will be a grand project, maybe later in the year I’ll try it out. I can’t read as fast in French or with quite as high a comprehension level as in English (but it is a fun challenge), so it will be a doubly huge undertaking if I end up going for it! But I think I’m falling in love with Hugo’s style. It is ornamented a certain way, grand and architectured to a high degree, so certainly not for everyone (I'm guessing he might be one of those love it or hate it kind of writers for people), but it appeals to me and my tastes!
Quote: "L'homme peut, comme le ciel, avoir une sérénité noire; il suffit que quelque chose fasse en lui la nuit. La prêtrise avait fait la nuit dans Cimourdain. Qui a été prêtre l'est. Ce qui fait la nuit en nous peut laisser en nous les étoiles. Cimourdain était plein de vertus et de vérités, mais qui brillaient dans les ténèbres."...more
Originally Mann thought he was going to write a book that deconstructed and eviscerated Keynes. As he researched and wrote he shifted more towards an Originally Mann thought he was going to write a book that deconstructed and eviscerated Keynes. As he researched and wrote he shifted more towards an agnostic position (even bit more sympathetic view) on Keynes, although he is certainly still torn in his positioning.
There is a lot to this book and I could write an endless review but I'll try and keep it to the very basics as I understood it. It is wide in scope with an examination that stretches from philosophical, historical, political, economic realms. Densely thicketed at times, but worth the effort and in my view the material is generally quite accessible. Book is framed in 3 parts, with a focus on the precursors to Keynesianism -Pre-Keynesian-, then Keynes, then Post-Keynesianism. The main analysis of the book is the focus on the crisis of modern day capitalism and the efforts and intellectual frameworks of the liberal reformist Keynes who wished to save it. What crisis-management policy tools should be implemented to avoid potential economic collapse and revolution? There is a lot of discussion on the dynamics between capitalism, the state, the bourgeoisie, the masses, civilization, revolution, and the role of Keynesianism in all this. There is philosophical exploration involving a lot of Hegel which I thought was really fascinating, especially the concept of necessity and the tensions in democracy and capitalism and the role of the state. The concept of how to provide pathways to honor and dignity for those who live in poverty is richly explored. The book features Keynes as critic of the system and yet ultimate believer in the system, desperately wanting to reform it so that it can keep surviving and allowing civilization to thrive.
Keynes was a believer in a technocratic elite, according to him it was this elite that kept the engine of civilization and culture going, the thin veneer of civilization was a crust laying on top of a teeming darkness, and this crust could easily be destroyed by the "rabble." And this isn't to say Keynes did not have sympathy for the masses but he certainly distrusted them and thought they were the potential destroyers of civilization. That's part of the reason he felt society (but most specifically the technocratic elite) needed to find a way to create a framework to make capitalism work for the masses, or at least provide pathways (like decent jobs) so that the necessities and basics of life could be met, otherwise teeming resentment could destroy everything. Misery breeds hate. And then destruction if unchecked. For Keynes one of the main avenues for the technocratic elite to walk tightrope in managing policy was figuring out how to expertly handle the policy levers via the state.
Keynes was a capitalist but recognized dangers of this mode if it was unfettered and rentiers and oligarchy hijacked the system. Without sensible policy/guardrails (implemented via the only entity powerful enough to enact counterbalance, the state) he thought capitalism would/could implode and take everything else down with it. The tension with democracy/capitalism that Keynes seemed to struggle with was fear of tyranny of the masses and fear of tyranny of a rapacious oligarchy whose singular pursuit of profit could spin things out of control and warp the system. And a 3rd fear he recognized was tyranny of the state (he was no fan of the Soviet state which was a good example of this!). So there was potential danger in each element.
A lot of the discussion on Robespierre and the French Revolution revolves around the problem of how to maintain honor/dignity of those in poverty, philosophical analysis of necessity, and also the dynamic of the struggle between the masses and the professional bourgeoisie (and technocrats). Robespierre does provide an example of how dark and off the rails things can go with a revolution, even one founded upon liberal principles (many more examples since then of course), and there is interesting discussion on the two major groups who were the engines behind the French revolution, the masses and the bourgeoisie (each had different goals and vied for power and control of the revolution).
The various interpretations of Keynes are explored. Keynesianism means different things to different people and there are splits and Mann meticulously documents post-WWII Keynesianism and its various branches. I still don’t have a proper enough handle on this to deliver a good summary, so I will need to read more on it. The discussions on the classical economists was also great, especially on Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus. I really should read some of those original texts at some point...
Discussion of capital, capital scarcity, and how too much capital can flatten yields and drive down investment was something I'd never thought about. I don't know too much about this issue but in the text there is mention that there needs to be some capital scarcity to maintain marginal capital yields that are sufficiently strong especially in relation to interest rates. If interest rates are high especially in relation to marginal capital returns there will be less capital investment. This part of the discussion focuses a lot on Piketty and Keynes who had similar interpretations on this issue. I haven't read Piketty but probably will at some point.
Overall this book is a great discussion, interwoven with analysis of political economy, philosophy, tensions in society and the interplay between these various elements. It's one of those books that I think could be enjoyed by those who don't agree with Mann or his ideas, his presentation is interesting and thought-provoking. I could always be wrong about that but given the breadth of analysis I think there is enough here to provide appeal for a diverse audience, although if one is a fan of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism then this book will be a harder pill to swallow and I can imagine this is the one group who will have a harder time appreciating Mann's analysis and will likely contest large portions of it. Even though I’m far from that positioning I'd certainly be interested to hear that critique and how they would interpret this book. I wish there were more reviews of this book, especially outlets like the Financial Times (Martin Wolf for instance) and WSJ, it’d be fascinating to see how they parse this thing....more
“Privatize the gains, socialize the losses.” Mantra of the neoliberal era.
First off, excellent excellent book. It does an impeccable job in explainin“Privatize the gains, socialize the losses.” Mantra of the neoliberal era.
First off, excellent excellent book. It does an impeccable job in explaining contemporary financialized and globalized capitalism - the analysis is measured, lucid, incisive, smart, exhibits strong fundamentals and understanding of systems and their historical evolutions. I learned a lot, Mann is very adept in his presentation and makes complex issues accessible and understandable (explanation of subprime implosion is topnotch). I def recommend this one even if you disagree with certain political economic viewpoints in this text because Mann has great analytical ability and knowledge base when it comes to economics.
One thing that must be understood about Mann, and this may turn some people off: he comes at things from an anti-capitalist perspective. He doesn’t smother the text with this (although he does allude to it), but he does explain his position at the end of the book. In spite of his positioning, I do respect that regardless of how he feels about capitalism, he makes efforts to give credit to its power, its ability to innovate and inherent vitality allowing it to ascend as a hegemonic power throughout the globe. He also explains it is not monolithic, it has various iterations, and like any system it has strengths and weaknesses and he is pretty fair in this overall assessment I think.
Personally I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm more a believer in reformed and properly regulated capitalism (some will argue this is impossible), coupled with a certain level of redistribution and socialized aspects like education, healthcare, safety net with a vision of spreading out opportunity to empower the citizenry. I also think there will have to be an exploration and experimentation with the concept of universal basic income - which may be critical depending on how the nature of labor shifts due to the evolution of technology. Many of these things I think are necessary in order to counteract capitalism’s most pernicious tendencies which naturally creates and stokes vast inequalities. I also think we need to find ways to strike balance between labor and capital, things are totally out of whack with financiers and mega-wealthy and mega-corporations dominating power, hijacking policy, dictating and manipulating the rules of the game.
At the end of the book Mann makes the pitch for anticapitalism, and potential visions for what this might entail. This part? Huh, wha? He kind of demands a sort of magical thinking, leaping of logic that defies my abilities. I respect the reasons he feels we need to transcend capitalism, the hegemony of money and markets in our lives, hyperconsumerism, privatizing every last atom to kingdom come, commodification of every aspect of our lives, these things are problematic and erode us spiritually and culturally (not to mention economic aspects this all entails!). And in fact I agree if capitalism keeps being practiced in the current incarnation it might very well implode by destroying earth systems it relies upon to generate wealth and buttress economies. That is a prospect I have a deep fear of. And capitalism is inherently very volatile, and now that it has pursued and developed financialization of the economy to such extraordinary levels - which I think is incredibly risky to system stability - we face a much more amplified (and dangerous) volatility.
Capitalism naturally lends itself to vast inequalities and without guardrails cannibalizes resources and earth systems if they can be monetized in any way. That’s why we need guardrails, otherwise capitalism will destroy itself, imho. But I have an inability to buy into the anticapitalist vision, maybe it is a lack of imagination on my part, or maybe I’m too enmeshed in the current system and status quo worldviews, and maybe I have too much personal stake in this current system. All legit questions which I can’t adequately answer, but I think the inherent problem is that no coherent vision is being offered (at least in this book)! I also think a transition to any other system involves the potential for great suffering, and this is not really touched upon too much, or only at a glance.
Far as I can tell capitalism is the least ugly dog in the line-up. Mann’s knowledge and critique are impressive, but as he stretches his vision he loses me. In my thinking you always have to be careful to not trade tyranny of one system for tyranny of another haha (or plain anarchy)! And you know, to be fair, he cites as warning some of the catastrophic failures of other modes of production and ideological systems that were not capitalist. I do hold hope for a form, and reformed form, of capitalism surviving, just not the current form suffocating humanity and cannibalizing the environment. Capitalism is not monolithic, and if it is to survive it will need to morph into various iterations that find greater harmony with the world and we will need to counterbalance the inherent excesses of this mode with smart policy.
Ultimately, my view is that the great existential test for late capitalism will be the environmental crisis and inequality crisis we are facing (not necessarily completely separate problems). Both of these things could turbocharge instability leading to implosion. I have to say, in regards to inequality, I have a worry we may keep seeing the top 20% (full disclosure I'm part of this class, or at least it is my background and this critique can fully apply to me) walling themselves off, further consolidating resources, opportunities, and power, further distancing themselves from collective problems humanity faces (even though they are better resourced and positioned to tackle some of the major issues). This prospect, of elites purposefully walling themselves off, is a great fear I have (and a theme consistently explored in various dystopias, I’m a bit of a moth to flame with that stuff haha). It would represent a great abdication in my mind. Hopefully those in power will assume some responsibility and agency, but as things stand I am not confident the turn can be made before it is too late, if it's not already too late (which isn't an excuse for all of us to give up or do nothing of course!). When you are rich, you can buffer yourself from problems and avoid, ignore, deny them (people can be incredibly creative with the mental somersaults they do to maintain illusions!) for longer than the rest of people who are more exposed, but eventually they catch up to you and by this moment the opportunity for effective action may have passed.
I believe Keynesianism saved capitalism from its worst tailspin (a tailspin caused by its worst qualities), and it will take deep and various experimentation to figure out how to make capitalism work if it is to survive. Various ideas will need to be explored, maybe need to inbuild mechanisms that counteract capitalism’s very nature which is to create inequality and consolidation of economic power in the hands of the few, and find ways to counteract the sometimes extreme volatility of its cycles. Maybe this involves inbuilding adjustable tax rates, higher tax rates when economy heats up and lower tax rates as economy cools down, pegging tax rates to the economic cycle and including tailored progressive tax policies to recapture some of the wealth that consolidates at the top.
Hegemony of markets, corporations, oligarchs, and financiers will have to be tackled. Is that doable who knows, but Teddy Roosevelt provided a blueprint that some form of curtailment was possible via government power. As it stands the power of mega-corporations and oligopolies is still waxing, fully captured gov, and is gaining greater and greater control over our lives in the process (highly recommend this read: https://cryptome.org/2015/07/big-othe...). I also think missions of corporations will need to broadened with a dedication to multiple stakeholders, expanding beyond the domination of the shareholder to include community, workers, management, consumer, environment.
As I said, in my eyes the big tests for capitalism will be how it confronts the environmental and inequality crises, the seeds of its destruction or salvation are planted in those things. If there is implosion, who knows what comes after, it might just be a more fragmented and fractionalized form of current systems or it could be something different (the black box, who knows what you’re going to get, devil you know vs devil you don’t). But we will be left to pick up the pieces, and clean up the mess, which could be beyond our capacity, depending on what the outcome is for environment and its systems.
Random note: Mann’s comparison between Chicago school and Austrian school was interesting and insightful for me, there is important variance in their view of the free market (I mistakenly lumped them together). He has a lot of wonderful analysis of economic history, economists, various economic schools of thought. This was a real highlight of the book for me.
Regardless of how I feel about anticapitalism and Mann’s position on this, I feel he treated the material with an even-handedness that I really respect. He has a humility and honesty about his own views and analysis that I found refreshing, in spite of the subject matter he wasn't moralizing, preaching, self-congratulating. The text helped me think about economic issues and systems more deeply, it helped broaden my thinking but also helped me bone up on some economic and historical fundamentals.
I’d be interested to hear what others think on this one....more
This was a fascinating discussion. Very meandering, maybe organization and presentation could've been streamlined so that knocks it down a bit for me.This was a fascinating discussion. Very meandering, maybe organization and presentation could've been streamlined so that knocks it down a bit for me. To be fair, given the breadth of the material and ambitious nature of this book it is probably an impossible task. But overall I enjoyed the author's exploration of the intellectual history of "ressentiment" (anger, resentment). His exploration stretches as far back as the French Revolution.
I guess if I had to distill things the main focus here is about anti-systems intellectuals; intellectuals who rebel against the power of the state/power elite, the insipid and empty nature of bourgeois life (as some see it!), the hollowing out of spirit and agency due to the cult of modern materialism/consumerism, inequality and asymmetry of power in society, the sterilized secularized nature of the liberal Enlightenment era. What is the fall-out from these ideas? this kind of thinking can be warped into burn the system down philosophy with a focus on extreme nationalism and xenophobia, a mode of thought that is willing to destroy any and everything (with everything permitted, all crimes permitted so long as ends justify means). Of course for such ideas to take hold the ground amongst the public must be fertile, there must already be wide discontent, anger, economic pain/inequality, cultural revanchist sentiment, the view that society is spiritually dead, anger against entrenched elites who seem to monopolize power (politically, culturally, economically)...
The book goes beyond the intellectual realm and explores individuals and groups who acted on some of these ideas (including terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, elements of Al Qaeda. Symmetry between some of their thinking was surprising to me but in a way makes sense).
I really enjoyed his examination of Rousseau and Voltaire, along with various other contemporaries like de Maistre (I know very little about him, but de Maistre critiqued them both, I've made a note to read more on him). As I understand it, and forgive the flattening of nuance into simple caricatures, but Rousseau struck me as a pretty harsh anti-system, anti-elitist, anti-bourgeois, anti-materialist guy (most of which wasn't really new to me, but my depth of understanding his philosophy is low). What was new to me was Voltaire, I had no idea he was so wealthy and entrepreneurial. So while he was a rationalist, skeptic, etc, based on Mishra's presentation he comes across as an old school neoliberal elitist who looked down upon the masses in his own ways (even though he was locked out from the power elite that had political power, he made up for it with financial and cultural/intellectual power). That was fascinating, given those facts it makes sense why he and Rousseau absolutely hated each other.
I guess when it comes down to it I think both figures are interesting, would love to read more about them and their relationship as well. But to me a guy like Rousseau is more dangerous than a guy like Voltaire, even though both have flaws. And yet I'm firmly of the belief that thinkers like Rousseau are important, guys like him shake things up, inject a bit of passion and excitement back into the intellectual and public realms, challenge the holders of power... but excesses from this kind of character can be incredibly dangerous, can unleash an uncontrollable monster within the public realm. Then again, such ideas only get hold of the public imagination when the public is ripe and angry enough to embrace them, and some of these guys like Rousseau have a real bloodlust that is frightening and can help give frameworks for people to execute campaigns of violence. Although I'm sure when people are motivated/angry enough they can find a reason to destroy regardless of if a guy like Rousseau exists or not. (these are merely my impressions)
There were also major explorations of Russian intellectual thought, especially mid-19th to early 20th century, certainly not a lack of bomb-throwing burn the system type guys in that era! But given that the vast majority were locked out and completely disenfranchised from any shred of power it makes sense that this would be the perfect grounds for such anger. Dostoevsky is endlessly fascinating (read a lot of him when I was younger, want to get back to reading his work, more familiar with his explorations on suffering than his political philosophy). Also exploration of quite a few German thinkers like Nietszche. Nice analysis of the dynamic between France and Germany, both intellectually, politically and the interplay between those who adopted certain French cultural intellectual ideas and those who rebelled against it. And the tension that occurs when there is a dominant hegemonic foreign culture/ideology and the need to define oneself against it and form a counter/counter-vision. Mishra also points out this interesting dynamic in India.
There was a section on Hindu nationalism and the development of modern ressentiment in India. The book gets into some pretty nuanced psychological analysis with both Germany and India, how the dynamics worked between those who adopted certain intellectual ideas from abroad and how it warped them in different ways (not really in ways you'd necessarily expect). Learned quite a bit in this section, that history is somewhat non-linear and multi-factional which was interesting, some of it is somewhat speculative but makes you think.
Basically lots of good stuff. This is a very ambitious book and sure it falls short in a few sections, it is hard to tie everything together. The author has a lot of knowledge, has read a lot, has some very interesting insights. I imagine some people might take issue with some of his analysis, for me it works quite well overall, but even if you don't agree with his analysis the discussion and explorations are fabulous and make it well worth the read.
Incredible read. Yourcenar writes from the 1st person inside the mind of 2nd century Roman emperor Hadrian. We are in the driver's seat of his mind, sIncredible read. Yourcenar writes from the 1st person inside the mind of 2nd century Roman emperor Hadrian. We are in the driver's seat of his mind, seeing his thoughts and experiencing the 2nd century Roman world through his eyes.
Yourcenar explores the man with subtlety and nuance, exposing a deep and interesting psychological portrait, all the little details add up to create an amazingly intimate experience connecting the reader to this emperor. Of course there is a lot of speculation and artistic license, but she did a lot of research for this (far as I can tell), and merely as an artistic endeavor (regardless of historical aspects) this book is a phenomenal accomplishment. The psychological explorations are fantastic and her interpretation of how Hadrian may have seen and experienced the world is both believable and interesting, she inhabits this man. This aspect is a totemic achievement in regards to artistry and degree of difficulty, if you had told me this book was written by him I'd be like "Cool! sounds legit to me! amazing this guy's memoirs made it all the way down to us given that we have like less than 1% of the writings from that era surviving to our times" (although tbh, I don't think Hadrian would have been such a good writer, there is such a 20th century elite intellectual writer quality to this so there are a few tells that might have given it away hehe. The exploring and writing about emotions, personal psychology, intimate details strikes me as a much more modern phenomenon, at least on average because I'm sure there are exceptions. Don't quote me on that though that is just my sense of things as a lay person without deep grounding in literary history). But whether it is accurate and true to life in a way doesn't matter to me, it was a vehicle to bring us a psychological exploration of a man with great power and influence and also this device served as a vessel to explore and travel the 2nd century Roman world. In this she succeeds.
There is a lot of contemplation, philosophical meanderings that Hadrian explores. I enjoyed this a lot. Others might find it annoying, but to me it added to the portrait and felt incredibly real and believable.
I was particularly struck by how she imagined Hadrian dealing with chronic illness/health issues. I honestly have to suspect Yourcenar went through some of her own serious health issues, because her understanding of this issue, and her exploration of human psychology under health duress is so on point and captures the smallest and most intimate truths of these experiences. I have a hard time imagining someone who hasn't experienced these truths would be able to capture and explore them with this level of understanding. Anyways, I loved those sections.
Her notes at the end of the book are great too, loved reading about her process and experience in writing and researching this book. It's always interesting to learn about a creator's methodology, process, experience in the creation of their work. I found particularly incisive her comments about the pitfalls of trying to write and "know" another human being. It is an impossible task. Neither can one TRULY know oneself (I concede there are degrees). But as she explains she couldn't recreate a "true" autobiography of herself either, it would be just as difficult as writing this work on Hadrian. But that is part of the fun of such an experiment as this, it is imagination, conjecture, exploration of the human spirit projected from the prism of one's own experience, time, culture, psychology, feelings, etc. I also liked her point that there will always be this gulf in both one's ability to understand oneself and ability to understand others; they are similar phenomenons. Along the lines of understanding others she uses the example that her father is just as unknown to her as Hadrian is, even though 18 centuries separate these two people. It was a point that struck me:
"Tout nous échappe, et tous, et nous-mêmes. La vie de mon père m’est plus inconnue que celle d’Hadrien. Ma propre existence, si j’avais à l’écrire, serait reconstituée par moi du dehors, péniblement, comme celle d’un autre. J’aurais à m’adresser à des lettres, aux souvenirs d’autrui, pour fixer ces flottantes mémoires. Ce ne sont jamais que des murs écroulés, des pans d’ombres. » Et ailleurs, parlant de son père : « Je ne suis pas plus Michel que je ne suis Zénon ou Hadrien. Comme tout romancier, j’ai essayé de le reconstituer à partir de ma substance, mais c’est une substance indifférenciée."...more
Excellent critique of post WWII US military foreign policy. The collection of essays is slight, but the critique is presented in a clear, concise, incExcellent critique of post WWII US military foreign policy. The collection of essays is slight, but the critique is presented in a clear, concise, incisive manner with a well-executed economy of style; every sentence adds to the overall argument.
First off, when I critique US military policy (and I am very critical in a general sense) I think there are a few things to note about arguments on its (potential) benefits.
One, it provides a massive amount of jobs and an avenue for people who may have few opportunities to climb the economic ladder. But in a way this can be critiqued, because if military is the only avenue for some to climb the economic ladder then I see that as an indictment of the rest of the system/economy and the lack of opportunities it is presenting for wide swathes of the populace.
Secondly, investment in military generates tons of spin-off technologies/innovations. Sadly, war and threat of war are great incentives for innovation. You could argue that we could still make massive investments in science and technology at the (non-military) government level and reap major benefits (in fact we do, but are actually underinvesting in this arena imo). But there is no getting around the spin-off tech benefits of military science/tech investment. One can question efficiency of use of resources though, that is a major problem with our special-interests captured war machine.
Thirdly, yes there is benefit to be derived from projecting hard power and trying to contain what are considered security threats. But there is also blowback in various ways as well. You conduct yourself like an imperial empire you will extract certain benefits, but also end up stoking certain negative consequences as well; the underlying resentment, hate, anger can manifest and explode in variety of ways.
Anyways, with that out of the way, here is the crux of John Dower's argument:
US military policy in the post-world war II era has been a source of great pain and instability in the world. We have misused our power, often chasing ghosts and fighting ideologies with the most despicable of techniques and in the process manifested a staggering level of hypocrisy. There have been massive violations in terms of human rights, egregious wastage and inefficiency with the war machine/military industrial complex growing and growing and always needing more and more resources, and the growth of the surveillance state has involved massive infringements upon civil society. And for a country not involved in a major conflict (although this point is debatable, we are in perpetual war mode and conducting armed operations to one degree or another in sooo many theaters) we are pouring trillions of dollars into the perpetual, inefficient, bloated, special-interests captured Keynesian funded operation that is our imperial war machine. Is this sustainable? Not to me it isn't, not in the long term.
There are some great essays, including ones that examine how the military-industrial complex derives funding, namely through the exploitation of fear in the public realm (back in the day invoking "communism," and now the new forever war that gets the dollars flowing is the Great War on Terror). This line sums it up:
"Fear of ominous existential enemies primed the political pump to maintain support for a massive military machine."
I tend to think that some military interventions can be warranted, but when you are overly focused on using military as spearhead against ideologies you are probably going to metastasize the original cancers if you aren't smart about things (this too often includes having basically zippo understanding of regional history/nuances, but rushing like a bull into the china shop anyways because hubris). In too many cases we've poured gasoline onto the original fires. Another important note that Dower documents and critiques: be careful of the bedfellows you choose and support. Dower's examination of CIA history is particularly damning. You can preach freedom, liberty, democracy, human rights as much as you want, but as one often sees these terms are weaponized and used to camouflage the dark underbelly of our actions and belie a serious double standard/hypocrisy. Actions speak louder than words, and the record is appalling.
There were several essays on nuclear weapons and nuclear policy. Very highly critical of the "delicate balance of terror" thinking that dominated policy circles, including cavalier attitudes of nuclear brinksmanship and provocation. Here are a few excerpts:
"Predicatably absent from the most of these alarming prognostications was the fact that US nuclear policy itself was and remains a major provocation in the atomic arc of instability... The ceaseless US quest to maintain massive "technological asymmetry" militarily is guaranteed to keep arms races of every sort going."
What is interesting are the sources and policy experts that did a 180 from the old school nuclear brinksmanship/delicate balance of terror policy. My god this even includes Kissinger! I'm not a fan of Kissinger but it was interesting to see him, the hardest coldest cruelist realist in the game, embrace the "Global Zero" concept for nuclear weapons.
One final note on the concept of American exceptionalism:
"The mystique of exceptional virtue does not accommodate serious consideration of irresponsibility, provocation, intoxication with brute force, paranoia, hubris, reckless and criminal activities, or even criminal negligence."
This quote is important for me because it encompasses the main problems with the concept of American exceptionalism. Such a concept allows a double standard whereby we sidestep accountability and responsibility because we are supposedly operating in a framework of higher virtue; we cannot be held to the common international standards and rules because of our very exceptionalism. It is sneaky and dangerous, and ends up being a slippery-slope into permitting ourselves anything. We do not abide critique and analysis of our actions because of our very exceptionalism, such critique is often not tolerated and thus precludes serious honest dialogue about our policies. We invoke liberty, democracy, freedom, wrapped into the concept of American exceptionalism, but as so often happens this invocation gives us carte-blanche and permits us anything, even the most extraordinary actions/crimes that literally go against these basic concepts which we supposedly champion. It is disingenuous and the deep hypocrisy seriously damages our credibility. Ultimately it is very counter-productive, hurts a lot of people, and provides ammunition (ideological propaganda) to our enemies.
PS. This is a good article by military historian Andrew Bacevich that asks hard-hitting questions of the military establishment and political leaders. Takes contemporary media establishment to ask, fully justified imo. Mirrors much of Dower's critique: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176277/...more
Loading...
