3 ms·

+1 for Stalingrad by Beevor A soul shaking book. It changed my outlook on bureaucracy/society/humanity.

the_af 5y ago
What I don't like so much about Beevor's Stalingrad is the narrative he weaves. He gets into the minds of his subjects and "tells" the reader what they were thinking, which is effectively impossible. This is a narrative flourish meant to grab the reader's attention, but it's also an inadmissible interference by the author, and one where he inserts his own bias. I find Beevor's style very hard to take, since I don't enjoy being told what to think. Contrast this with someone more dispassionate, such as David Glantz. He will tell you about the Eastern Front with more dry facts and less "going inside the minds" of generals or ordinary soldiers (UNLESS there is a reference that supports this). The resulting account is both more factual, with less author's ideology seeping through, but also drier and harder to read. Boring at times, even. So Beevor is "more fun" to read than Glantz, but also way less impartial and more concerned about telling the reader what to think, and I really dislike that.
- algo_trader 5y ago
  Artistic license, and so forth Do u have an opinion on Peter Zeihan? Horribly entertaining, but is it speculative analysis or pure fiction?
  - the_af 5y ago
    I haven't read Zeihan. > Artistic license, and so forth I know, but because this is a history book (even if it's more "pop" history) the shape of the authorial voice matters more than in a fictional novel. Beevor's voice is often misleadingly disguised as impartial information, enough that I'm sure lots of his readers actually think everything he describes happened exactly like he said, inner thoughts included. Now, if "Stalingrad" was a historical novel like "I, Claudius", where you understand the author is making many things up for the sake of entertainment, that'd be fine -- but I don't think that's what Beevor intends.

What I don't like so much about Beevor's Stalingrad is the narrative he weaves. He gets into the minds of his subjects and "tells" the reader what they were thinking, which is effectively impossible. This is a narrative flourish meant to grab the reader's attention, but it's also an inadmissible interference by the author, and one where he inserts his own bias. I find Beevor's style very hard to take, since I don't enjoy being told what to think. Contrast this with someone more dispassionate, such as David Glantz. He will tell you about the Eastern Front with more dry facts and less "going inside the minds" of generals or ordinary soldiers (UNLESS there is a reference that supports this). The resulting account is both more factual, with less author's ideology seeping through, but also drier and harder to read. Boring at times, even. So Beevor is "more fun" to read than Glantz, but also way less impartial and more concerned about telling the reader what to think, and I really dislike that.

algo_trader 5y ago
Artistic license, and so forth Do u have an opinion on Peter Zeihan? Horribly entertaining, but is it speculative analysis or pure fiction?
- the_af 5y ago
  I haven't read Zeihan. > Artistic license, and so forth I know, but because this is a history book (even if it's more "pop" history) the shape of the authorial voice matters more than in a fictional novel. Beevor's voice is often misleadingly disguised as impartial information, enough that I'm sure lots of his readers actually think everything he describes happened exactly like he said, inner thoughts included. Now, if "Stalingrad" was a historical novel like "I, Claudius", where you understand the author is making many things up for the sake of entertainment, that'd be fine -- but I don't think that's what Beevor intends.