Books of the Year 2012

12 Comments

1. 

   Alex

   11 December 2012 at 19:55

   what did you think of Alan Ryan’s On Politics? Was it worth the time?

   Reply
   • 

     David Auerbach (Post author)

     12 December 2012 at 14:49

     For me it was, though there were parts I read more closely than others, as tends to be the case with 1000 page books. It’s a seriously synoptic work, which means that it goes quickly and there will always be plenty to disagree with in its summaries. His main goal is to provide a linear account connecting political theory and philosophy to history, and I think he does a pretty good job, especially when he gets onto the French Revolution through to Hegel and Marx.

     The general quality of his thought is pretty high and I like much of what he has to say. Still, I would not call it an essential or revelatory book in the way that, say, I found Polanyi’s The Great Transformation to be. The difficulty, as always, is that the historical picture resists any easy summary and so the linkages between politics & practice inevitably seem dubious, especially when read alongside a book like Tim Blanning’s great and more surprising Pursuit of Glory, or Sheldon Wolin’s more incisive Politics and Vision. Ryan is circumspect and charitable in his writing, acknowledging these problems, so that the problems are not with Ryan’s skill and insight, but with the underlying nature of the project. Ryan’s concerted moderation makes him less challenging to one’s preconceived notions than Polanyi, Blanning, and Wolin.

     I think that Mark Mazower’s review captures some of Ryan’s strengths and weaknesses, though I think omitting Habermas and Carl Schmitt is no great sin.

     Reply
2. 

   Jim

   11 December 2012 at 21:37

   You might also be interested in Caligula: A Biography by Aloys Winterling. “He sets the emperor’s story into the context of the political system and the changing relations between the senate and the emperor during Caligula’s time and finds a new rationality explaining his notorious brutality.”

   Reply
3. 

   Amateur Reader (Tom)

   11 December 2012 at 21:38

   Despite all of the books here that I would like to read or should read or would read if I were doing that instead of this, it strikes me as funny that the only book that we both read this year was the first volume of Carl Barks.

   I have been thinking about the Eric Kandel and would enjoy a note or two about it. And the Szentkuthy is good? I figured.

   Reply
   • 

     David Auerbach (Post author)

     12 December 2012 at 13:40

     One of these days I will write some epic essay on Carl Barks and the dark, fatalistic conservative mindset at work in those stories. I only found out this year that Barks himself was in dire personal straits during 1947-1951 or so, generally acknowledged to be the peak of his genius.

     The Szentkuthy is fascinating, but like Dwight below, I’ve had trouble figuring out what to say about it. It’s defiantly odd.

     Reply
4. 

   Dwight

   12 December 2012 at 12:52

   A great list for me to explore, especially the nonfiction (some of which I read this year as well).
   I’ve been meaning to write on the Szentkuthy. I loved it but have had trouble writing anything on it. I’ll correct that next week.

   Reply
   • 

     David Auerbach (Post author)

     12 December 2012 at 13:49

     Thanks; I should correct my not following your blog–lots of new writers to investigate there like Mariengof and Galdos. So many books, so many books.

     Reply
5. 

   Ray Davis

   14 December 2012 at 09:05

   The Person I Am Volume One (Laura (Riding) Jackson Series) — Holy cats, how did you find these!? I’ve seen no reviews, no excerpts, no notices…. Are they more Anarchism Is Not Enough or more Rational Meaning?

   I suspect Riding’s reliability as a self-witness, but she can’t be much worse than Graves.

   Reply
   • 

     David Auerbach (Post author)

     14 December 2012 at 15:26

     Volume 1 is more Anarchism, Volume 2 is pure Rational Meaning and other late stuff. I found them while searching on LRJ on Amazon, which I do from time to time on the assumption that, indeed, new stuff from her will not be noticed anywhere.

     Reply
6. 

   Robert Minto

   17 December 2012 at 23:49

   I, too, read the books by Burnyeat, Momigliano, Gass, and Moore.

   How did you find the Gass? For me, it was the best volume of essays he has yet produced (though A Temple of Texts is hard to beat for its title essay).

   Also, I would love to hear your thoughts on the Ian Mclean book, as I am considering whether to invest the time to read it.

   Reply
   • 

     David Auerbach (Post author)

     24 December 2012 at 01:46

     I thought Life Sentences was more inconsistent than Temple and Fiction/Figures…the Kafka essay, for example, didn’t work for me. Gass takes chances and sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don’t. Maybe I’ll feel differently after reading Middle C.

     Did you like the Moore? It impressed me, not the least because that sort of book linking contemporary and older philosophy doesn’t seem to get written any longer, at least not with such polemical style. Definitely the best book by a Deleuze fan I’ve read in ages.

     The Maclean book is excellent scholarship in the Warburg tradition: exquisitely researched and methodically organized, with absolutely no concessions to trendiness or a broader audience. So it is considerably denser than Andrew Petegree’s The Book in the Renaissance or Ann Blair’s Too Much to Know, but more enlightening to its target audience. The scope is broad but Maclean does not waste space. The period isn’t a particular specialty of mine, so I extracted from it what was useful for me while admiring his general tenacity and focus, but I would not recommend it to someone without *some* background in the period–I’d recommend those other two books first, even though I think Maclean is more impressive piece.

     Reply
     • 

       Robert Minto

       25 December 2012 at 00:05

       What I most enjoyed about the new Gass volume were actually the more autobiographical essays. Unique and surprising from a writer like Gass. The essay involving his night escapades in the library especially prejudiced me, however. One only has to fantasize about living in a library for a sentence or two to win my deathless interest and appreciation.

       Thanks for the advice re: Maclean. I’ve read neither Petegree nor Blair. Perhaps I will begin with them.

       As for the Moore, yes, I liked it for the same reason. Nice to read about the history of philosophy as if it weren’t either a bargain-bin for concepts or an alternate reality.

       Reply