It is good, but there are things that are starting to grate on me - like her insistence in each of the last 3 chapters I have read to compare W.II to Toad in The Wind in the Willows. It distracts from what otherwise is presented as well researched historical fact.
There is a lot of jumping back and forth in time, too. It probably is necessary, but if I wasn't already familiar with most of the characters she introduces, it would be disruptive to getting the time line of events straight in my head.
Markk, I now see what you meant about the book being "introductory", too. While she does provide a lot of scene setting and background to the characters involved, there are elements that I feel are missing at this point - the heavy focus so far (5 out of 20 chapters in) seems to be the bickering between W.II and his British relatives.
There is so much wrong with that quote it sort of leaves me speechless. Although I do find the unspoken agreement of each country's gender fascinating.
There is a lot of wrong in that quote. And, yet... much to think about, too. I mean it's a hundred years ago, but a lot of the imagery, stereotyping, and phrases that were coined in those years are still around. And so are some of the myths that were created at this time. It is amazing to read about - and MacMillan does a great job when writing about the people, media, social context - how confused and gullible people were. The press was no help. Propaganda was as rife as false advertisement. I do regard them as two sides of the same coin, but where one was beginning to be legislated against (slowly but surely - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. was in 1893, the "birth" of the concept of "negligence" came in 1932 in the UK - well, roughly...), the other proliferated ... and is still rampant. Fake news is not a new concept. And fake news and nationalism going hand in hand is not new either...
It is rather frustrating to see that people in general are more educated and have better access to education, but many are still as gullible as 100 years ago.
Sorry, that developed into a rant. I still like that particular quote, not for what it says but for what it shows. And there is a special irony in the mention of Wagner, since he became such a favourite with the "uber-machos" a few years later.
Thanks for sharing those two articles. They are interesting.
I didn't know Wagner was a supporter of women's emancipation. I hope it gets a mention in the Wagner bio I have on my TBR. I also didn't know his son was moving in the same circles as Eulenburg. I mean, I've read about the Eulenburg affair but hadn't really stopped to think about the wider consequences... (Btw, Eulenburg gets quite a bit of page-time in MacMillan's book, too, because of his influence on W.II.)
I also had to double-check the quote I used against the statement in the second article that says (and quotes!) Hischfeld and his observations of the link with Wagner.
Not to say I believe Hirscheld's assumptions (...too little relevant research on offer in that one article...etc.), but I did not see that coming...
There is a lot of jumping back and forth in time, too. It probably is necessary, but if I wasn't already familiar with most of the characters she introduces, it would be disruptive to getting the time line of events straight in my head.
I have a feeling this will not be a 5* read.
It is rather frustrating to see that people in general are more educated and have better access to education, but many are still as gullible as 100 years ago.
Sorry, that developed into a rant. I still like that particular quote, not for what it says but for what it shows. And there is a special irony in the mention of Wagner, since he became such a favourite with the "uber-machos" a few years later.
http://gayinfluence.blogspot.com/2012/04/siegfried-wagners-homosexual-circle.html
http://wagnertripping.blogspot.com/2013/11/wagners-influence-on-sexual-mores-and.html
I didn't know Wagner was a supporter of women's emancipation. I hope it gets a mention in the Wagner bio I have on my TBR. I also didn't know his son was moving in the same circles as Eulenburg. I mean, I've read about the Eulenburg affair but hadn't really stopped to think about the wider consequences... (Btw, Eulenburg gets quite a bit of page-time in MacMillan's book, too, because of his influence on W.II.)
I also had to double-check the quote I used against the statement in the second article that says (and quotes!) Hischfeld and his observations of the link with Wagner.
Not to say I believe Hirscheld's assumptions (...too little relevant research on offer in that one article...etc.), but I did not see that coming...