Sam
The Unfinished Revolution was a splendid biography of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Although Kayloe seems to be something of a partisan of Dr. Sun's, he absolutely justifies his admiration for the 國父, the “Father of the Nation.” Between Sun's fierce honesty, his seemingly monomaniacal persistence (even after some 6 failed attempts at revolution), and his universally appreciable Three Principles of the People, it is easy to see why Sun is beloved on both sides of the Taiwan Strait nearly 100 years after his death.
Like any good biography, Kayloe's spends a great deal of time exploring the context in which Sun lived. Encroaching Western (and Japanese) imperialism, anti-Manchu nationalism, Qing attempts at reform, the rise of the Beiyang army, and the importance of the huaqiao, overseas Chinese, to Sun's career are all covered in satisfying detail. The activities of Sun himself are followed from Guangzhou to Hawaii, from London to Yokohama. All the uprisings, all the fundraising, all the failures, all the political intrigues. It cannot be doubted that Dr. Sun's life was an extraordinary one.
Many in the West have a hard time understanding why the Chinese state acts as it does. The Unfinished Revolution offers an implicit explanation. During China's “century of humiliation,” during which Sun lived, many of China's greatest cities were handed over to the Great Powers as “concessions” and “treaty ports,” euphemisms for “colonies.” Extraterritoriality allowed all foreign citizens to be immune to Chinese laws, resulting in brazen abuses by Westerners. Forever looming over late Qing China was the prospect of being formally carved up among the Great Powers. This last worry informs the CCP's objective of re-unification with Taiwan. One could make a convincing argument that China isn't fully unified only because of continued imperialism by Western powers.
What ashamed me personally was the absolutely infuriating behavior of American diplomats towards Sun and his entourage. Sun regarded the US as the most respectable of the Great Powers, especially when compared to Britain and Japan. In spite of America's purported “anti-imperialist” stance, in spite of the Constitution stating that “all men are created equal,” America's policies towards Sun were only marginally better than Britain's or Japan's. Sun was an ideological ally of America, and even at a time of strong Wilsonian idealism in the country, the US did nothing for Sun. The countries that ended up doing the most for Nationalist China? Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Seriously, I'm not kidding.
I had only two minor disappointments with this book. The first was the dizzying number of names to remember. Kayloe includes a glossary at the beginning, but referring back to it is a little tedious. I don't think this concern should dissuade one from reading this book; seeing so many unfamiliar names simply indicates that there's so much more to learn. My second disappointment regarded a figure who might've only been mentioned once in the book: Hong Xiuquan. I recall reading elsewhere that Sun, in many ways, saw himself as continuing the work of the Heavenly King. Kayloe includes some quotes from Sun on his deathbed, and it was clear to me that Sun was thinking of Hong Xiuquan as he lay dying. I had wished that Kayloe perhaps explored this theme more, but he might have found it insignificant and accordingly omitted the discussion.
Overall, Kayloe's biography of Sun is an excellent introduction to the man and his times. Sun's tragic but inspiring story has earned him the moniker “the kindest of all revolutionaries.” He envisioned a world order based on cooperation rather than competition. Kayloe helps us see the world through Sun's eyes, both in 1922 and in 2022. We can see that the bipolar world we live in wasn't one bit inevitable. The past always has a way of catching up with us.
Platt is a phenomenal writer of histories. Both Imperial Twilight and Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom are such fascinating and gripping tales. The only regret I have reading this book is the lack of more English scholarship on the material. Platt's work is ultimately introductory, and I would love to learn more about the time period. In any case, I am now a feverish partisan of Platt's, and I look forward to his future works.
As for the book itself, I can't express my admiration enough. Histories can be dry, but Platt always keeps things interesting by selecting key figures and regularly following their actions. It feels as though you're reading a dozen biographies, in a good way. All the joy, all the anxiety, the horror and exaltation that these people faced.
What enthralls me about the late Qing period is the clash of tradition and modernity. Learning about this period demonstrates how states, after the Industrial Revolution, evolved into polities whose primary purpose was the advance their economies. The contrast in characters, between Zeng Guofan and Hong Rengan in particular, demonstrates how truly capable individuals can react so differently to the tense circumstances of the late Qing. There's so much to learn from this time period, and I recommend this book without reservation.
“Five stars? You must be a filthy Leninist!”
And you must be short-sighted. It's important to read things you disagree with. Challenge what you currently believe, so that you can make your beliefs even more grounded, insightful, and consistent. This book does a great job of that.
Lenin is a fantastic writer. He explains very abstract concepts in terms that anyone with a decent education can clearly understand. His constant references to history remind the reader that his beliefs are not Utopian; rather, “socialism will emerge from the womb of capitalism,” as he says himself.
That isn't to say that Lenin is without faults. This was a man of extraordinary insight and analysis, but he used his talents only to defend Marxism. You can tell that, to Lenin, if Marx/Engels didn't say it, it was wrong. Lenin is a communist not because he believes he will bring greater justice to the world, but because he thinks himself a catalyst of the historically inevitable transformation from capitalism to socialism, as prescribed by Marx. This exceptional fervor (and dogma) incline me to think that Lenin would have made for an excellent missionary in another century.
The amount one learns from this book is absolutely incredible. The state as a tool for oppression of other classes by the ruling class, the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” the withering away of the state, the lower and higher stages of communism, the faults of reformism. Lenin is a concise writer; he covers a lot in just 100 pages. I highly recommend annotating as you read.
A very enjoyable reflection exercise is to analyze what Marxism got wrong. Here in America, I think it's because the bourgeoisie has become the majority. Lenin argued that democracies under capitalism are tools for the bourgeoisie to dominate the proletariat class. In his view, the state is for the domination of the majority by the ruling minority. But nowadays in America, we have a democratic republic that can be said to serve the bourgeoisie (as Lenin himself posits). However, the bourgeoisie has become the majority. There is no “inevitable next stage” to socialism here in America; that would be a transfer of power from the majority to the minority. Well, anyways, as you can see, you can still disagree strongly with Lenin and enjoy this book regardless!
A wonderful novel! Characters who felt alive, a plot that feels dynamic and unpredictable, prose that is simultaneously poetic and grounded. Thought-provoking and highly entertaining. The book is packed with wisdom; I gathered some 15 memorable quotes from it.
At its core, the novel has exactly one message: be defined by what you have, not by what you lack. Dantès struggled with this in his first years in prison (we all would), but we see that suffering can strengthen humans to an unbelievable degree. In his conversations with Faria, it is evident that Dantès fully embraced this message. Compare this to Maximilien's circumstances: he continued to define himself by what he lacked, so his resolve to kill himself remained until Valentine returned to him. Maximilien never had the trials by fire that made the Count understand this message.
From a religious perspective, this book is in extremely murky waters. Christianity is ever-present in the book, with the Count frequently associating with God in some way, first as His emissary and then as His equal. With this in mind, the Count believes that he can distribute “divine justice.” We can thus view the Count as a foil to Jesus Christ: the Count was a fraudulent “divine emissary” and enacted his revenge, while Jesus was truly divine and forgave all. In all, even if Dumas did not intend for justice to appear this morally problematic, the Count's justification in his quest for vengeance is nearly blasphemous.
What makes this whole justice question even more ironic is that the death that made the Count question his justification in achieving vengeance was that of Madame de Villefort. She poisoned four people, and the Count believes he took a step too far in indirectly enacting justice on her? Additionally, the Count was perfectly fine with letting the Saint-Merans, Barrois, and Valentine be casualties in his retributions, even though none of them deserved his “divine justice” by any justification. (The Count regretted the poisoning of Valentine only after Maximilien told him of his love for her.) In conclusion, I had many moral misgivings towards the Count which prevented me from liking the character. I understand that he reflected on these failings, but his own repentance was nowhere near sufficient. Still, the nuances presented by his situation were extraordinarily thought-provoking, such that they make me more inclined to recommend this book.
Nonetheless, I can't give this book five stars for a couple of reasons. First is Dumas himself. From Robin Buss's introduction, I learned that he wrote for money. For this reason alone, he didn't necessarily seek to explore the tragic and ecstatic depths of the human soul like, say, Dostoevsky (who was it that said “all great novelists die in poverty”?). Instead, Dumas made a plot that he knew would be popular. Certainly, there is some timeless wisdom in the novel, but his “popular novel” formula can really be felt; it feels cheap at times, such as when Valentine magically reappears at the end of the novel. Oh, and besides his approach to writing the novel, Dumas himself isn't a very upstanding character.
The second qualm I have with the book is the fate of Villefort. I thought that he was a good person at the end of the book. He might have made terrible mistakes in his past, sure, but I firmly believe in redemption. I don't think it was in character for Villefort to just back out of the court room when Benedetto revealed the whole quagmire of his history. I would have thought that he'd stand his ground, own up to his mistakes, and speak this line that he said only a couple hours before to his wife:
“For God's sake, never ask me to pardon a guilty man. What am I? The law. Does the law have eyes to see your sorrow? Does the law have ears to hear your soft pleadings? Does the law have a memory to make itself the conduit of your tender thoughts? No, Madame, the law orders and when it orders, it strikes.”
All in all, I wonder if I am the only one who believes that Villefort is the truly tragic character in this novel, not the Count.
Well, it's Dostoevsky's take on a love story. This was published before his four years of hard labor in Siberia, so it's much less anguishing than his later stories.
I sincerely respect the protagonist of White Nights. I see a lot of other reviews empathizing with him, which I definitely feel as well. Still, I feel a sort of distant respect for him, knowing that I couldn't do as he did. This “dreamer,” as he describes himself, has his dreams crushed and manages not to crumble under the rubble of those dreams. And it isn't out of cynicism or disdain that he carries on so admirably; rather, it's from valuing the joy he gained from those dreams, even if they might now be crushed. Sure, he feels dejected at the end, but he can cherish the temporary joy he had. As someone who has trouble valuing all things temporary and ephemeral, Dostoevsky's dreamer is the most remarkable protagonist I've read in a while.
The plot was an adequate continuation of the first book, but it wasn't very impressive or plausible to me. I thought a lot of major plot points were extremely contrived and artificial. Besides that, the prose annoyed me. It felt redundant, long-winded, and overly descriptive. These long descriptions were not fruitful either; it's just hard to imagine some of this sci-fi scenery. I thought the occurrence-to-fluff ratio was 0.2. Reading this book after the first is certainly necessary, but I found it a little disappointing.
Oh, also, there were at least 2 typos. >:(
I have to be very formulaic in reviewing this book, mainly because it evoked no strong feelings from me.
I seek two things in a book: entertainment and “thought-provocation.” Frankenstein was not very entertaining. The characters felt so dramatic, but in a marionette way. The way they expressed their grief or their ecstasy was so eloquently hollow. Now, of course, this is just a trait of Mary Shelley writing in the Romantic era of literature. But in any case, all the characters seemed cartoony and one-dimensional. The plot, too, was so predictable and terribly uninspired, even though I have never watched a Frankenstein-themed movie or play. Finally, if this is what the Romantics call a horror novel, they get frightened awfully easily. At best, Frankenstein gets a 2/5 in entertainment value.
As for how thought-provoking the book was, I was quite fascinated. I could sense that, at times, Shelley was scathingly criticizing the Christian God. After relenting to an audience with his creation, Victor Frankenstein noted that “[he] felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness.” At numerous points in the novel does Shelley draw a parallel between the relationship between God and humans and the relationship between Frankenstein and his creature. In this quote, she implies that God has a duty to listen to humans, a duty which He has never fulfilled. Reading Frankenstein from this perspective makes the book much more interesting. Finally, considering this in a science fiction context makes for equally remarkable reflections. What are the duties of humans towards future robots or androids? Reading Frankenstein in the same year as I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and I, Robot was a very happy coincidence for me. 4/5 for thought-provocation.
So, in sum, 3/5. Extremely boring characters, but the book poses some fascinating questions that slightly redeem it.
Where do I even start? I don't know what to say about Notes from Underground as a literary piece. I'll just say that it requires patience.
As an artistic work, it's remarkable. Dostoevsky embarks on such an incredibly display of talent–
No. I'm not even going to try. I'm confused. You should read it, but you'll also be confused.
Lore! So, so much lore! That's what I enjoyed most about Hyperion: the 700 years of lore that Simmons thought up. It's extremely entertaining, creative, and thought-provoking. The dangers of entertainment-focused content industry, with the most talented writers writing trashy romances rather than exploring what it means to be human; the horrible injustice of Rachel's time curse, aging backwards while forgetting everything from the day before; human reliance on the Delphic and seemingly infallible AI TechnoCore, bestowing unto humanity incomprehensible technologies that society relies on, such as wormholes. Simmons creates the richest sci-fi universe in any book that I've read so far.
That being said, I raised an eyebrow many times while reading the book. I have three main complaints: the long passages of hard-to-imagine scenery, how crude the story was, and the historical eyerolls. “The Third Sino-Japanese War?” “The Second Holocaust?” Really? I don't know if Simmons was trying to make a reasonable prediction of the future or if he was just trying to be edgy. In any case, a fascinating vision of the future that warrants a read!
It's like sci-fi Sherlock Holmes with robots. A sequence of “mystery” short stories that are loosely related, but could each be read independently. I found it very entertaining and easy to read (Asimov himself once described his writing style as evolving around one principle: “to be clear”). There were many very interesting ideas posed in the book; one of my favorites was: “if humans had infallible robots to govern and direct them, would they let the robots do so? Or would human pride and distrust win out?”
I also have to laud Asimov for how convincing his sci-fi is. Each of these stories feels like it could happen in the next few decades. And for writing in 1950, Asimov's foresight is definitely impressive.
Last fun fact: J.R.R. Tolkien, who once said he generally disliked “modern books,” made an exception of Asimov. I doubt my recommendation would be of greater value than J.R.R. Tolkien's, so listen to him!
Deranged? Raving? Idiotic? Well, I have to concede that We is at least imaginative. I think my rating says more about me than it does about the book. I suppose I'd be an ideological apologist for the One State, which governs everything rationally and scientifically. To me, this book was following the subversive acts of a bunch of overly sentimental terrorists, while others might read this book as a memoir of some freedom fighters restoring humanity to a despotic society. I despised the “protagonist,” whom I'd prefer to deem an antagonist. This opinion, of course, made the book very hard to enjoy. So... the enjoyment one may derive from We is quite dependent on the political beliefs you already have.
The only reason I did not give We one star is because of how clearly original the novel is. It might as well be the first of the ‘‘dystopia'' genre. Another fun fact that might persuade you to read it: We was the very first literary work that was banned by the Soviet censorship board. Well, at least Comrade Zamyatin provided a manual for combatting anti-state terrorism a millennium from now.
A very thrilling and immersive read! The prose was clear and easy to read, and all descriptions of the setting were easy to picture in my mind (as opposed to Dune, with Herbert coming up with outlandish ways to describe a slope of sand). The plot was entertaining and thought-provoking, the two qualities I look for in any good book. Being set in 2021, it's also enjoyable to compare the world today and Dick's world. Highly, highly recommend!
Base rating: 5 stars
-1 star for how crude the book gets
-1 star for the totally inane decisions the characters make
+1 for the heart-warming and life-reaffirming ending
= 4 stars
Kafka on the Shore is a treatise on memories and how dangerous yet valuable they can be. It has so much wonderful wisdom hidden in the most unexpected of places. You have your standard Murakami elements in this book: talking cats, metaphysical occurrences, precocious and insightful characters, a winding yet satisfying plot.
I read books for two reasons: either for entertainment or for their thought-provoking/informative nature. Kafka on the Shore fulfills both these roles marvelously.
I felt constantly bored by this book. I didn't like the characters; I didn't like the prose; the plot was quite linear and predictably boring. Sometimes I think to myself, “maybe the characters are supposed to seem alien and strange and unlikeable? Maybe the plot is supposed to be predictable because, well, Paul?” But this book is neither entertaining nor thought-provoking. A real disappointment.
“What caused the Opium War?” I never knew this question required 400 pages to explain until I read this book. Platt extricates history from narrative and objectively describes the causes of this consequential occurrence while never becoming pedantic or dry. It is worth noting this is not a military history: the course of the war is described in less than five pages. It's more like an account of Sino-British relations before the Opium War and how the war was sparked. Highly recommended for anyone interested in Chinese history!
I read the last 250 pages of the book in one day. But I can't bring myself to give it 5 stars. It's remarkably entertaining and gripping. I love all the tangential philosophical questions the book poses. The characters are well-developed and dynamic.
One of my favorite lessons from the book is in the final pages (no plot spoilers, don't worry). What is it that humans value most? The character posing this question finds an answer: novelty. Both Newton and Leibniz discovered calculus independently, but we credit Newton because he did it first. If I had read The Way of Kings before I read The Lord of the Rings, I'd have eagerly given it 5 stars. But it lacks novelty. It feels so cliché sometimes. It feels repetitive.
The Way of Kings is a fantastic book. Thought-provoking, engaging, enjoyable. I'll definitely be reading the rest of the series. But I do not believe this book will stand the test of time as The Lord of the Rings has. 4 stars!
Alright, I'm a huge Dostoevsky fan. I have a sticker of the guy on the back of my phone. Crime and Punishment is my second favorite book. But The Idiot is just boring. I love Dostoevsky for his psychologically hard-pressed characters. His characters have more emotional depth than most real humans. But The Idiot is just a disappointment. Who's Nastasya going to marry? Who's it going to be!?!? It all feels so artificial and absurd. Maybe that's why I disliked the book; I came into it expecting Dostoevsky-esque realism, but I got proto-postmodern-existentialism, with all these characters making totally inane decisions. SKIP!
Wow! Imagine Murakami reading this whole thing to a large audience in some sort of theater. Once he finishes, the entire audience would erupt in rapturous applause. That is how I feel after reading this book. I just want to give Murakami an aggressively loud applause. I mean, I read the last third of this book in 24 hours. It's terrific.
Be warned, though, it is WEIRD. It covers the whole emotional spectrum. Crude, crazy, contemplative, and all sorts of other adjectives starting with C. It is just so impressive to me how Murakami tells such a wild story in such a coherent way. Must read!
This book was incredibly disappointing. It's a lot of Wyman stating “things were like this in Europe and this made Europe special.” And what were things like elsewhere? As Wyman points out in the introduction, China and India, for example, were more advanced than Europe before the Divergence; so why didn't they develop these institutions? Wyman's exclusive focus on Europe makes his argument very unconvincing. Decently interesting points about European history, but if I could go back in time to advise myself not to read this book, I would.
Forgotten Ally is a brilliant introduction to the Second Sino-Japanese War. Mitter confers some truly invaluable insights into the great figures of the time (one of my favorites: Chiang Kai-Shek, Mao Zedong, and Wang Jingwei, for all their differences, all had one goal in mind: an autonomous, unified, nationalist China). And besides just the “Greats,” many biographies of an “average citizen” are told, whether that's a middle class Chinese Christian who nearly loses her family in their chaotic flight from the Japanese invaders, an American missionary remaining under Japanese occupation in Shandong, or even a Henan family who gives their last bit of grain to the tax collectors during a famine, then jumping to their deaths moments later. I cannot help but feel that this book does an excellent job capturing the experiences of the period.
In addition to these precious stories of individual families, Mitter relates countless insightful judgments about the contested questions of the period. No, Chiang was not simply a horribly incompetent and corrupt military autocrat. No, Mao and the Communists didn't just sit back and let the Japanese grind the Nationalists to powder. No, Wang wasn't just a collaborationist traitor. Mitter explores the nuanced situations each of these figures found himself in.
The human tragedies are also examined in satisfying detail. The Nanjing Massacre (and the state of the city under Japanese occupation), the bombing of Chongqing, the destruction of the Yellow River dam, and the Henan famine. I greatly appreciate how much Mitter covers these events, and he discusses them in a very balanced and smooth fashion.
It is useful to note that this is not a book solely about the military campaigns between the Chinese and Japanese. The campaigns are referenced and detailed frequently, to be sure, but only as long as they can bring value to understanding the period and the human experiences as a whole. This is not to say the book felt lacking. The book feels comprehensive, engaging, and well-written.
I can wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about China. I found this book through Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast, and reading it has deepened my understanding of the period greatly, while keeping my attention at every page. 5/5.
I've read the Foundation books from Foundation to Foundation and Earth, and this is the only one I rated four stars (I gave all of the others five). It's still a pretty good novel, but the ending underwhelmed me, to say the least. One more book in the series would've been an excellent consolation, but there is no book after this. Still, if you're this far through the series, give it a read, but don't hold your hopes as high.
