View Single Post
Old 07-27-2015, 10:04 AM   #7
issybird
o saeclum infacetum
issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
issybird's Avatar
 
Posts: 21,372
Karma: 235205657
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New England
Device: Mini, H2O, Glo HD, Aura One, PW4, PW5
Anyone? Bueller?

This was a mixed bag for me. Starting with the good, as an idiot's (ie, moi) guide to the Battle of Waterloo, it was very good. Before reading it, all I knew about Waterloo, other than Wellington's winning it and Napoleon's being packed off to St. Helena, was dancing at the Duchess of Richmond's ball the night before and "The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." This was compact and for the most part, engagingly told. I now have a clear sense of the various battles, stands, and personalities, which is to the good.

Frankly, I expected something by a writer of Cornwell's stature to be better written. I've already mentioned the frequent shifts in tense, which drove me nuts. In addition, he repeated anecdotes and analyses (I remember it from the first time, thankyouverymuch) and had another writing tic of ending up a section with a one sentence (and sometimes a sentence fragment) paragraph. That staled quickly. His diction could have been improved. I do not think prevarication means what he thinks it means. I suspect Cornwell is one of those writers who is too big to be edited, alas.

As I've said, I've no basis on which to criticize his historiography. My gut reaction says that Napoleon and Ney couldn't have been quite so incompetent as Cornwell portrays them, nor Wellington so god-like; it was a near thing, after all. It's a matter of the defects of its virtues, I suppose. I like footnotes, but this was clearly mostly compiled from secondary sources and his own vast store of knowledge about the period. Geared to the general reader, so lacking any real historical rigor. I thought the best parts, as in the most evocative, were the quotations from first-person accounts and the pictures; the book was worth reading for those alone.

I had meant to read a biography of Napoleon this year, for the bicentenary of Waterloo, but that will probably be postponed until next year. Again, as I've said, I'm more a causes and effects person than a battle person, and I'm looking forward to reading about the Congress of Vienna and the new shape of Europe. This will do Waterloo for me.

One last reaction is that Cornwell is superb at protraying the carnage of war. As I get older, I find it harder and harder to understand why disagreements have to end in limbs flying and lives lost and ruined. Wouldn't tiddlywinks be a better choice? (I stole that from a Mad Magazine parody of Wellington and Napoleon remembered from my youth.)
issybird is online now   Reply With Quote