Max Hastings - 'Catastrophe'

[Guest]

Catastrophe has just arrived. I am already annoyed by the second paragraph.

[Muerrisch]

My take on the book is that it rather like eating too much: broadening after a while, and indigestible towards the end.

Having myself written and had published half a dozen books, all with errors, I cannot be too hard on errors by other authors. [Grumpy mellowing on holiday].

As it is, the scope of the book is such that I was quickly into terra incognita and thus unable to spot mistakes.

The style is indeed journalistic.

I am away from the book at the moment but the phrase that I relished was where Hastings compares the "band of brothers" leading the BEF in 1914 to brothers Cain and Abel. Almost worth the small price I paid for that one phrase.

[Steven Broomfield]

Catastrophe has just arrived. I am already annoyed by the second paragraph.

Took you that long?

[Guest]

Took you that long?

No. The first two words did it: "Winston Churchill..."

I can't help thinking that opening a book with a quote from Winston Churchill is a feeble attempt to give the book some gravitas. As if quoting him adds some weight to what comes next. Two lifetimes ago in the Barmy we were taught that It is the last refuge of those not confident enough to make their own points. In this case Sir Max makes the earth-shattering observation (using Churchill's words) that the beginnings of conflicts are interesting and different. Really. One of the academic reviewers noted that many of the recycled views in the book are Churchill's and implied that he makes the same mistakes as Churchill's assessments. I have already lost count of the number of times he quotes Churchill.

Sir Max describes the historian Kenneth O Morgan as 'wise', when he argued that 'the history of the First World War was hijacked in the 1920s by the critics..." without explaining what these publications were. I must be missing something.This view seems slightly at odds with "The Great War: Myth and Memory" (2005) by Dan Todman which offers a view that the Great War was remembered in a more positive light in the subsequent decade. Todman argues that in the 1920s "Anyone putting forward in public the idea that the war had been an incompetently run and colossally futile waste of life, unmitigated by any redeeming heroism would have been chased from the street in the early 1920s" . It would also seem strange in an era when most unit histories were published. I am not quite sure how one measures this alleged hijacking. Sir Max seems to think it is still the late 1960s and is railing against Alan Clark et al. He seems to be unaware of a a large body of so-called revisionist history ...or maybe that is his angle - to re-deliver the revisionist view as something 'new' to a less informed mass-market audience. He must be the hundredth author to mention Blackadder in his intro. So, two pages in and it is fulfilling my low expectations.

If anyone is aware of how I can fast-forward to the parts where he 'pricks some myths and presents some striking and controversial judgements' (as the blurb on the back cover claims) I would be extremely grateful.

I am also rather irritated by Sir Max's assumptions (second page of the intro) that "there is widespread belief that [insert an old chestnut]...." and then immediately counter it with something that is dressed up to be an anti-consensus view which in fact has been known and understood for some time. Quoting without providing references is a sin in my book. He paints with a very broad brush

[kenneth505]

Sounds like he's attempting to reach the large market of people less educated on the topic. Not trying to reach those well versed on the literature. I find his other works to be lowest denominator stuff.

[Steven Broomfield]

You know what, Mr Santa Fe? I agree with you.

[David Filsell]

And of course, whatever we or anyone else thinks, he is still selling books. Ker-ching

[Muerrisch]

I am clearly in a minority here.

Given that Hastings had never before written anything I wanted to read I was without prejudice.

I purchased Catastrophe to broaden my very narrow Western Front, British perspective.

In this respect I am happy unless members can point out specific misinformation

[Steven Broomfield]

David, for me it's not whether Hastings' information is right or wrong: I just don't like his writing style.

[David Filsell]

bloomers

I am something of flag bearer for Falklands Max and freely admit it. Not perfect but ... And I particularly enjoy his reviews. I know there are faults in catastrophe, but I still think it has some merits, popular in style certainly but after trudging through books for a review, particularly those by American academics, I need a good read from time to time.

David

[Scalyback]

£3 in hardback at a local second hand bookshop. Oh dear.

[squirrel]

I am clearly in a minority here.

Given that Hastings had never before written anything I wanted to read I was without prejudice.

I purchased Catastrophe to broaden my very narrow Western Front, British perspective.

In this respect I am happy unless members can point out specific misinformation

[John_Hartley]

Just finished reading this and am glad I bought it.

Books like this serve to remind me that there was much more to the war than my narrow Anglocentric view of it.

[joerookery]

but after trudging through books for a review, particularly those by American academics, I need a good read from time to time.

David

LOL I hope that does not apply to retired American non-– academics David!

[Loader]

I saw the book at my library but it was on hold so could not check it out. My question is not about the writing style or content of the book but about the picture on the inside cover of the book. The one showing bodies & rifles & a drum after a fight. The photo looks very real to me & I wonder where it was taken? It looks to be 1914 & I think the bodies are German or French. No time to really look in the book for references to the photos so if anyone knows the story behind the photo please post it here. Thanks for any help.

Did not see any spiked helmets but the closest rifle looks like a Mauser. Drum is small one.

[Steven Broomfield]

I'm pleased to say I unloaded my copy last week. I bought it for a tenner I think (might have been £15 - it's somewhere in this thread, I daresay) and shipped it out with a few other unwanted books in exchange for a very nice framed, hand-tinted picture of a group of 4th Hussars around 1890. Lovely.

Interestingly (or not, as the case may be0 amongst the books was Christy Campbell's books about the first tanks, which suffered from the same journalistic drawbacks of Sir Max's tome. I think I just have an allergy to history written by journalists.

[Steven Broomfield]

LOL I hope that does not apply to retired American non-– academics David!

Even worse.

[Terry_Reeves]

I think sometimes that this forum is overly critical. I do not have a particular problem with Max Hastings, he writes for specific market, and I accept that. It is easy to pick holes, but it seems to me that it is always better to look at a book in the round. I just wonder how many

"revered "authors are actually nit free? Is not mainly a matter of opinion?

TR

[Steven Broomfield]

I don't disagree, Terry, and I can't think of anyone who is nit-free. It's just that Sir max's style grates on me. But then I find the same with novellists - love some, hate others. I really do, however, generally dislike journalistic history, whether GW or other. As an example, James Holland's book on the battle of Britain I found unreadable, simply on the basis that he referred to protagonists by their given names - why, I don't know, but it infuriated me, and I've reached an age where I'm content to give up on a book I'm reading for pleasure if it's not giving me pleasure.

May well be my problem, of course: I daresay my opinion won't stop Sir Max writing and selling a lot more books.

[Terry_Reeves]

Steven, that really is my point, it is a matter of opinion. Gordon Corrigan's books I find irritate me intensely, but that's life - well books at least.

TR

[kenneth505]

Finally actually read this book and finished last week. Have to say it's the best book by Hastings I've read. I enjoyed it cover to cover and rather expected to dislike it. Was quite happy to see him call French a poltroon! While there was little that could be called new he gave good individual experiences and a reasonably fresh look at the well trodden topic.

While I strongly suspect there is no way to discuss Sir John w/o having it turn into a flame out discussing the other guy I would like to hear if there is support for Max's position that French was a thorough incompetent?

[masonalex]

I enjoyed the book. And unlike others, I have no particular objection to Hastings' writing style. Naturally, we are seeing a number of new books in time for the centenary. Of those that I have read, Hastings' book ranks well.

[hazelclark]

I think I just have an allergy to history written by journalists.

While in general I would tend to agree, I think I would qualify that by inserting "modern journalists". I have recently enjoyed a number of books written by journalists closer to the war, who were writing from first hand experience. I realise that many on this forum would likely argue about the content, but I like the style of Gibbs for instance.

I never finished "Catastrophe".

Hazel C.

[Steven Broomfield]

As I think I said, my copy was bought cheap and sold cheaper.

[Felix C]

A criticism of Max Hasting regarding his ETO related WW2 books as that the Germans are depicted as superior soldiers to the Allies without weighing the benefits of defensive posture, topography and specify weapons and tactics honed from extensive defensive fighing on the Eastern Front. Does he do the same respecting WW1?