What are you reading now?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I just borrowed Ricks' Churchill and Orwell from the library. Is this a new genre?

The earliest example I can think of is Bullock's Hitler & Stalin: Parallel Lives from 1991.

[vinteuil]

The earliest example I can think of is Bullock's Hitler & Stalin: Parallel Lives from 1991.

... I think Plutarch got there first -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_Lives

.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... I think Plutarch got there first -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_Lives

- so he did.

("Double" biographies of famous partnerships - Gilbert & Sullivan, Rolls & Royce, Marks & Spenser, Morecambe & Wise etc - have been around for some time, but the extended* comparative biography of two contemporaries is, I think, more recent.)

* - The Bullock is over 1200 pages long.

[MrGongGong]

This

https://www.routledge.com/Lines-A-Brief-History/Ingold/p/book/9781138640399

[Mal]

That was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment, wondering if "Churchill and..." was a new genre - I guess at most it would be a sub-sub-genre! But now the conversation has become more interesting, as Ferney indicates "the extended* comparative biography of two contemporaries" might have the makings of an interesting new(?) genre. Weren't Plutarch's parallel lives separated by centuries? This comparison of two contemporaries might be a good way to highlight important events that are common to two significant figures, hence allowing us to see the same events from two angles. But Telegraph review: "His [Ricks'] juxtaposition of Churchill with Orwell is ... not without its problems. While it is interesting to compare these two very different characters, Ricks never makes it quite clear why he should have chosen these men rather than any other two. The parallels he draws between Churchill’s and Orwell’s lives are stretched, to say the least; and his contention that the “key question” each of them faced was the battle to “preserve the liberty of the individual”, while certainly true in Orwell’s case, is more simplistic when it comes to Churchill."

From the Victorian era, "Father and son" by Edmund Gosse perhaps fits this genre (and it's a great read!)

[Richard Tarleton]

That was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment, wondering if "Churchill and..." was a new genre

I recently mentioned that I was reading Barry Gough's "Churchill and Fisher", a fascinating 500 page volume covering the period up to Fisher's death in 1920 and the parallel and closely linked careers of Churchill and the great First Sea Lord. The old Fisher and the much younger Churchill had a tempestuous friendship which survived their falling out over Gallipoli.

[Mal]

Churchill & Attlee: The Unlikely Duo Who Won The War by David Cohen (hot off the press... looking like a trend...)
God and Churchill by Jonathan Sandys (!)

[aeolium]

A different example of the "dual lives" biography is Charlotte Gordon's Romantic Outlaws: The Extraordinary Lives of Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley which I read some time ago with more of an interest in the life of Mary Wollstonecraft (and also because it was in our local library). This book takes the peculiar form of a chronological study of each life, following the life of each in alternate chapters. I found it irritating in the end and just wished she had written two biographies.

[Mal]

... following the life of each in alternate chapters. I found it irritating ...

I've noticed a similar approach in some modern novels, for example TC Boyle's Terranauts. You get the view from one character in one chapter, and another character in the next, and then back to the first character ... I'm not sure it's workable. I gave up on Terranauts when I realised the tedious plot development seen through the eyes of one unsubstantial character was going to be repeated through the eyes of another unsubstantial character. Twice the tedium! Kafka on the Shore is also like this, which started well, but I have now given up on.

I haven't started Churchill & Orwell yet, but the chapter titles seem to indicate it mostly follows this alternating pattern. Oh well, musn't prejudge, it has had positive reviews from serious people (John Gray, Andrew Roberts...)

[Richard Barrett]

Alternating chapters from different points of view can seem very much as if a run-of-the-mill narrative is being mucked about with in an attempt to make it into something that keeps you reading. These days I find it very offputting, and, as Mal suggests, Murakami is a prime culprit - 1Q84 seems to go on for thousands of pages before the completely predictable merging of storylines finally takes place. Hard-Boiled Wonderland... is another one that makes you wonder why these two stories are between the same covers, except to make each of them seem a bit more mysterious than they would if they were published separately. I guess that might not matter to the hardcore Murakami fan but it annoys the hell out of me. As does anything about Churchill, I would have to add!

[greenilex]

I remember enjoying the narrative disjunctions in Cloud Atlas, though.

[Richard Barrett]

I remember enjoying the narrative disjunctions in Cloud Atlas, though.

David Mitchell is on a different level of interwovenness there, to be sure, although I found Cloud Atlas a bit schematic compared to number9dream or Ghostwritten. The people making the Cloud Atlas film must have thought so too, breaking up all the narratives into much smaller chunks, rather than staying with the relatively simple ABCDEFEDCBA form of the novel.

[Pianoman]

'Chernobyl; History of a Tragedy' Serhii Plokhy

Gripping, horrifying really; though you think you know what happened, this tragedy unfolds with more tension than any fiction I can think of. Meticulously researched by a true historian with personal connections to the whole thing.

[Bella Kemp]

I imagine, Petrushka, that you would like Ring of Steel by Alexander Watson. Have you come across it? It's an account of the First World War but told from the point of view of the Germans and Austro-Hungarians. Utterly fascinating and instructive.

[Mal]

I'm reading Upstate by James Wood. I'm finding it a gripping read, the gamekeeper can turn poacher!

I just finished Ricks' Churchill and Orwell and would recommend it. I've read quite a lot of Orwell, and I think Ricks is especially good on what's worth reading, and what isn't. He pans the early novels; I've never forgiven penguin for putting all the early novels in one large volume. I bought it at near full price, so *had* read it all the way through, it was not a great experience. Ricks points the reader to Homage to Catalonia, 1984, and Animal Farm for Orwell at his best, and I think he's spot on. He also provides good commentary on his other non-fiction books and essays. His overview of Churchill is also very good, but I do question the linking of these two men in the same book. They didn't really have much in common, except a love of freedom. But Ricks is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and this reads like the best journalism; it's gripping throughout and, although he quotes mostly secondary material, seems accurate. So not for the serious historian, perhaps, but for the rest of us a rollicking good read.