Here some very short (one-paragraph) unpublished reviews of works of non-fiction I have enjoyed and would recommend for at least some readers. In the reverse order in which I read them, not of publication, so most recent reads first:
The Escape Artist: The Man Who Broke Out of Auschwitz to Warn the World, by Jonathan Freedland:
This excellently written and narrated book is several things at once: a compelling true adventure story, a harrowing account of one of the greatest atrocities in history, and an intriguing meditation on the historical processes that shaped the reception of the news of the death camps as these began to emerge in Europe from 1942 onwards, as well as an attempt to answer the question “what difference would it have made if more people had known this earlier?”
Jews, Judaism and Success, by Robert Eisen:
I have a longer review which will appear shortly in Contemporary Jewry and which begins “Robert Eisen has published an excellent book setting out a clear, cogent and highly original answer to the question why Jews have ‘become such a remarkably successful minority in the modern Western world'”.
Second Chances: Shakespeare and Freud, by Stephen Greenblatt and Adam Phillips:
A collaborative project between a great literary critic and a renowned champion of psychoanalysis exploring how the chance to reset your life after initial setbacks features as a recurrent theme in the works of these two towering cultural figures. Is it just me, or is it something intrinsic to the two subjects, or is it just an accidental feature of these two writers’ respective prose styles? I find the chapters on Shakespeare luminous and inspiring, but I often struggle to make it through the meandering sentences of the chapters on Freud and emerge into sunlight on the other side.
Right Kind of Wrong: Why Learning to Fail Can teach Us to Thrive, by Amy Edmondson:
A zinger of a book in the inspirational business genre, replete with anecdotes about the way in which rebounding from failure can lead to both personal wisdom and professional success. Distinguishes different types of failure (simple, complex and intelligent) and different attitudes to them, and links this to the notion of psychological safety in organisations which Edmondson has pioneered over many years. You get the point of the argument quite early in the book, so the subsequent anecdotes illustrate rather than develop the theme.
Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative, by Glenn Loury:
Fascinating, and not just because I know, like and admire the author. An absorbing account of what it is to have a heart stronger than your head, and a head smarter than your heart. It strikes me as having many wise things to say about racism in America, but then, what would I know? Makes me reflect hard about whether we can escape the prism of identity: we can and we can’t, Loury seems to be saying. Economists are not known for their emotional candour, but Loury dispatches this cliché with sometimes brutal vigour.
Geography is Destiny: Britain and the World, a 10,000 year history, by Ian Morris:
A jaunty gallop through the history of the British Isles, with the running theme that the English Channel is eternal but its role as a barrier or a bridge is not. Technology (especially boats, ships, planes and missiles) and institutions, on both sides of the Channel, have determined whether the inhabitants on the norther side of the water have preferred to stand aloof from those on the south, or have seen their destiny as inseparable. The answer keeps changing; Brexit was just another variation on a theme that has been playing for millennia. Lively, often tendentious, always fun.
Christianity’s American Fate, by David Hollinger:
A clear and concise overview of Hollinger’s research on the way in which the US has come to have “an increasingly secular society…saddled with an increasingly religious politics”. Discusses how ecumenical Protestantism took a leading role in progressive politics from the interwar period onward. In the process it paved the way for some progressive ecumenicals to leave religion altogether, and for some conservative ecumenicals to join the evangelical movement, which in turn became more politically engaged on the right. Especially good on the role of missionary service in shaping ecumenicals’ commitment to anti-racism and anti-colonialism, and on the immigration of Jews to America in overcoming the Protestant monopoly on American cultural life.
Politics on the Edge, by Rory Stewart:
A revealing and well written account of Rory Stewart’s career as a Conservative MP and minister. Depressingly candid about the dysfunction and cynicism of British political life and the utter unsuitability of the House of Commons for promoting effective government. Sometimes unintentionally funny, as when he writes (p. 274) that, during a conversation with a prison governor, “I stopped talking and tried to give him time to tell me why he felt as he did”. You have the impression that Stewart did most of the talking when he met civil servants, so his bewilderment that they did not always like him or take his advice is rather touching.
Nuclear War: A Scenario, by Annie Jacobsen:
Terrifying. And not even funny.
The Upside-Down World: Meetings with the Dutch Masters, by Benjamin Moser:
An engaging account of a very literate and not particularly visual person getting to grips with the main Dutch painters of the 17th century. Pressed me to think, even when I disagreed with his judgments. Which was often – for instance, I couldn’t understand why he he described it as a “tragedy” that Jan Lievens did not develop a single core style in the way that Rembrandt did. This seemed like a version of the pathetic fallacy – transforming Moser’s sense that the work is less satisfying into a major life-problem for Lievens. Moser intrudes more on the reader than an art-critic should. But if – not if, when – I next return to the Netherlands with time to see some paintings I will want to have this book with me; I wouldn’t want to pass up enjoying his often spiky company.
What’s the Use of Philosophy? by Philip Kitcher:
There were many things in this that I liked. Kitcher sets out his stall and gives a credible account of why it’s rewarding to do the kind of philosophy he does. But gives only the sketchiest of reasons beyond invective to justify his regarding some other kinds of philosophy (mainstream metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of language, for instance) as sterile or pointless. What’s missing is an argument, grounded in the nature of higher education and the scarce resources available to universities, for why philosophy departments should concentrate more on Kitcher’s style of philosophy and less on traditional subjects like metaphysics. I’d have been open to such arguments, but was left with a feeling that I’d been given only the appetizer and was still waiting for the main course.