What do you think?
Rate this book
Age of Assassins
History
Age of Assassins by Michael Newton – Guardian review
David Runciman on the misfits who turn to political killing
David Runciman
The Guardian, Tuesday 16 October 2012 09.15 EDT
Assassination did not begin in 1865 any more than sexual intercourse began in 1963. History is strewn with the corpses of leaders cut down by disgruntled rivals or wild-eyed fanatics. The Romans did it, the medievals did it, the early moderns did it. What makes the period 1865-1981 so different that it can be called "the age of assassins"? Michael Newton's answer, in this rich and haunting new history, is not the number of assassinations but the quality of the assassins.
The killers he writes about were, for the most part, neither rivals nor fanatics. They were unremarkable people, which is what makes them so peculiar. Often, their motives are hard to fathom: this is the age of political murder as gesture politics. Newton's story starts with John Wilkes Booth, an actor who killed a president in a theatre. It ends, appropriately, with John Hinckley, the would-be assassin of Ronald Reagan, a disgruntled fan aiming to kill a president who had been an actor in order to get the attention of an actress.
Booth, Lincoln's assassin, is the bridge between the ages: he was both a throwback to an earlier time and a harbinger of things to come. He hoped to emulate the assassins of antiquity, who killed tyrants rather than live as slaves, though he was doing it on behalf of the American South, which was built on slavery. Booth saw himself as a selfless martyr, yet he was also a drunken poseur and a fantasist. The theatrical flourish with which he shouted out, at the crucial moment, the Latin motto of the state of Virginia "Sic semper tyrannis" ("Thus always to tyrants") was, Newton writes, "both ludicrous and momentous". Lincoln's death was an epochal event and an exercise in futility. It did nothing to preserve the South from defeat and occupation. If anything it helped to accelerate it.
A theme of this book is the way that the consequences of assassination so often confound the expectations of the assassins. Sometimes, the effects are far greater than anticipated. Gavrilo Princip, the scruffy Serbian student and low-level conspirator who in 1914 killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Hapsburg throne, wanted revenge for the indignities Austria had heaped on Serbia. Instead, he had to watch as the whole of Europe was consumed by a terrible war. This was so far removed from what Princip had intended that he acted as though it had nothing to do with him. But one of his co-conspirators, tasked with throwing bombs at the archduke's carriage, lamented as he saw the world go up in flames: "If I had foreseen what was to happen I should myself have sat down on the bombs so as to blow myself to bits."
More often, the assassins assume that their act will have a galvanising effect, when in fact the reaction is bemusement and contempt. Newton writes brilliantly about these botched assassinations and embarrassing failures. One was the attempted murder of the American industrialist and robber baron Henry Clay Frick in 1892 by the anarchist Alexander Berkman. The would-be assassin wanted to strike a blow for workers everywhere by killing one of their arch oppressors. But not only did Frick refuse to die – he survived being shot in the head – Berkman himself was attacked by a carpenter who happened to be in Frick's office at the time. Didn't this ordinary worker understand that the assassination was being undertaken on his behalf? No, he simply assumed Berkman was deranged and knocked him out with a hammer.
Many of the assassins in this book had a view of the public significance of their deeds that totally misjudged the public. Another anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, murdered the American President McKinley in 1901 in a gesture designed to expose the sham of American democracy. But if McKinley was really just a puppet, then removing him would change nothing. American democracy simply found another figurehead, the hugely popular Teddy Roosevelt, and carried on as before. Killing democratic politicians did not shake Americans' faith in democracy: they identified with the victim, not the perpetrator.
Because these crimes often seemed so senseless at face value, it was tempting to think that the true explanation must be hidden beneath the surface. Assassinations did not produce political change but they did produce plenty of conspiracy theories. Czolgosz, it was assumed, could not have been acting on his own; he must be part of some sinister anarchist network. But there was no conspiracy. Czolgosz was an impressionable loner who had attended a lecture by the anarchist intellectual Emma Goldman and taken her at her word: he decided to act for himself.
Czolgosz was in many ways a forerunner of the later, better known assassins of the 20th century, including another impressionable loner, Lee Harvey Oswald, the killer of JF...
Age of Assassins by Michael Newton – Guardian review
David Runciman on the misfits who turn to political killing
David Runciman
The Guardian, Tuesday 16 October 2012 09.15 EDT
Assassination did not begin in 1865 any more than sexual intercourse began in 1963. History is strewn with the corpses of leaders cut down by disgruntled rivals or wild-eyed fanatics. The Romans did it, the medievals did it, the early moderns did it. What makes the period 1865-1981 so different that it can be called "the age of assassins"? Michael Newton's answer, in this rich and haunting new history, is not the number of assassinations but the quality of the assassins.
The killers he writes about were, for the most part, neither rivals nor fanatics. They were unremarkable people, which is what makes them so peculiar. Often, their motives are hard to fathom: this is the age of political murder as gesture politics. Newton's story starts with John Wilkes Booth, an actor who killed a president in a theatre. It ends, appropriately, with John Hinckley, the would-be assassin of Ronald Reagan, a disgruntled fan aiming to kill a president who had been an actor in order to get the attention of an actress.
Booth, Lincoln's assassin, is the bridge between the ages: he was both a throwback to an earlier time and a harbinger of things to come. He hoped to emulate the assassins of antiquity, who killed tyrants rather than live as slaves, though he was doing it on behalf of the American South, which was built on slavery. Booth saw himself as a selfless martyr, yet he was also a drunken poseur and a fantasist. The theatrical flourish with which he shouted out, at the crucial moment, the Latin motto of the state of Virginia "Sic semper tyrannis" ("Thus always to tyrants") was, Newton writes, "both ludicrous and momentous". Lincoln's death was an epochal event and an exercise in futility. It did nothing to preserve the South from defeat and occupation. If anything it helped to accelerate it.
A theme of this book is the way that the consequences of assassination so often confound the expectations of the assassins. Sometimes, the effects are far greater than anticipated. Gavrilo Princip, the scruffy Serbian student and low-level conspirator who in 1914 killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Hapsburg throne, wanted revenge for the indignities Austria had heaped on Serbia. Instead, he had to watch as the whole of Europe was consumed by a terrible war. This was so far removed from what Princip had intended that he acted as though it had nothing to do with him. But one of his co-conspirators, tasked with throwing bombs at the archduke's carriage, lamented as he saw the world go up in flames: "If I had foreseen what was to happen I should myself have sat down on the bombs so as to blow myself to bits."
More often, the assassins assume that their act will have a galvanising effect, when in fact the reaction is bemusement and contempt. Newton writes brilliantly about these botched assassinations and embarrassing failures. One was the attempted murder of the American industrialist and robber baron Henry Clay Frick in 1892 by the anarchist Alexander Berkman. The would-be assassin wanted to strike a blow for workers everywhere by killing one of their arch oppressors. But not only did Frick refuse to die – he survived being shot in the head – Berkman himself was attacked by a carpenter who happened to be in Frick's office at the time. Didn't this ordinary worker understand that the assassination was being undertaken on his behalf? No, he simply assumed Berkman was deranged and knocked him out with a hammer.
Many of the assassins in this book had a view of the public significance of their deeds that totally misjudged the public. Another anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, murdered the American President McKinley in 1901 in a gesture designed to expose the sham of American democracy. But if McKinley was really just a puppet, then removing him would change nothing. American democracy simply found another figurehead, the hugely popular Teddy Roosevelt, and carried on as before. Killing democratic politicians did not shake Americans' faith in democracy: they identified with the victim, not the perpetrator.
Because these crimes often seemed so senseless at face value, it was tempting to think that the true explanation must be hidden beneath the surface. Assassinations did not produce political change but they did produce plenty of conspiracy theories. Czolgosz, it was assumed, could not have been acting on his own; he must be part of some sinister anarchist network. But there was no conspiracy. Czolgosz was an impressionable loner who had attended a lecture by the anarchist intellectual Emma Goldman and taken her at her word: he decided to act for himself.
Czolgosz was in many ways a forerunner of the later, better known assassins of the 20th century, including another impressionable loner, Lee Harvey Oswald, the killer of JF...
736 pages, ebook
First published October 1, 2012
12 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
About the author
Michael Newton
6 books10 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Michael Newton has taught at University College London, Princeton University, and Central Saint Martin's College of Art and Design, and now works at Leiden University. He is the author of Savage Girls and Wild Boys: A History of Feral Children, Age of Assassins: A History of Conspiracy and Political Violence, 1865-1981, and a book on Kind Hearts and Coronets for the BFI Film Classics series. He has edited Edmund Gosse's Father and Son for Oxford World's Classics, and The Penguin Book of Ghost Stories and Conrad's The Secret Agent for Penguin. He has written and reviewed for the Times Literary Supplement, London Review of Books, the New Statesman, and The Guardian.
Michael Newton has taught at University College London, Princeton University, and Central Saint Martin's College of Art and Design, and now works at Leiden University. He is the author of Savage Girls and Wild Boys: A History of Feral Children, Age of Assassins: A History of Conspiracy and Political Violence, 1865-1981, and a book on Kind Hearts and Coronets for the BFI Film Classics series. He has edited Edmund Gosse's Father and Son for Oxford World's Classics, and The Penguin Book of Ghost Stories and Conrad's The Secret Agent for Penguin. He has written and reviewed for the Times Literary Supplement, London Review of Books, the New Statesman, and The Guardian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 11, 2013
This history of assassination (both successful and attempted) concentrates on Europe and especially on the USA and takes us from Lincoln to Reagan. The author gives little credence to conspiracy theories, but gives us plenty of context on each assassination, so that we understand both the motivation and consequences. Few historical subjects are as inherently dramatic as assassination, so naturally this is fascinating stuff. He spends a great deal of time on the anarchists, especially Berkman and Goldman, while other assassinations (George Lincoln Rockwell and Harvey Milk for example) are dealt with in a couple of pages. But this is far more than a collection of "greatest hits"; Newton demonstrates convincingly how assassination in the West has changed in character over the years, originally arising from idealism, however misguided, until finally ending up largely as a drastic means of gaining fame. The Reagan incident is, of course, a perfect illustration of this - an attempted assassination of a political leader motivated not by politics but by a desire to impress a film actress whom the perpetrator had not even actually met. Newton also shows how each assassination has been to some extent influenced by those that have gone before. This is a thoroughly researched, extremely well-written, insightful and penetrating work.
July 7, 2015
Firstly I expected this book as a kind of thriller like the day of Jackal. My expectation was betrayed. In this meaning my rate is 3 stars.
But this is well reserched through the assasin's psychological point of view. I was able to understand the psychological background on each assasinations. As academical thesis, this book should be rated 4 or 5 stars.
But this is well reserched through the assasin's psychological point of view. I was able to understand the psychological background on each assasinations. As academical thesis, this book should be rated 4 or 5 stars.
August 23, 2020
Purchase Age of Assassins here for just $12!
Newton writes a fascinating account of assassination in the Western world. In a riveting sequence of stories, he brings to light some of the most shocking acts of murder and political violence in the 20th century – and provides us a glimpse of the people responsible.
Allison - The Book Grocer
Newton writes a fascinating account of assassination in the Western world. In a riveting sequence of stories, he brings to light some of the most shocking acts of murder and political violence in the 20th century – and provides us a glimpse of the people responsible.
Allison - The Book Grocer
July 28, 2016
Þetta er einstaklega skemmtileg bók. Mér fannst hún dreifa fókusnum aðeins undir lokin, þar sem áhersla á pólitísk morð færist yfir í selebbdráp. Það eru tengingar við tilræðin við forsetana en mér sýndist þetta aðallega vera til þess að taka á bandarískum samtíma, sem hefur verið meira og minna laus við pólitískt ofbeldi -- af því tagi sem Newton ræðir. Hann nefnir þá staðreynd að pólitísk morð séu algengari annarstaðar í heiminum þessa dagana en einhverstaðar verður maður jú að draga landamærin, annars reynir bókin að fjalla um allt.
Tesan er sú að vestræn menning sé of upptekin af poppkúltúr og sjálfinu til þess að íhuga pólitískt morð, þar sem einstaklingurinn vegur annan einstakling í þágu hreyfingar. Nema þegar árásarmaðurinn er geðveikur, en þar með eru hugsjónir hans ógildur hvati. Á öðrum sviðum hefur pólitískt ofbeldi beinst gegn almenningi, það er eitthvað sem Newton snertir á en, aftur, liggur það utan mæra bókarinnar. Kannske er það viðsnúningur hinnar hliðarinnar, þar sem einn áhrifamaður er ekki lengur gilt skotmark.
Einhvernveginn get ég ekki hætt að hugsa um DeLillo. Hann kemur í hugann aftur og aftur þegar ég les þessa bók. Libra náttúrulega, og Mao II.
Allavega, bókin missir aðeins fókusinn undir lokin, en í heild er hún frábær lesning, allt fram að enda. Skemmtilegar sögur, áhugaverðar pælingar, vel skrifuð. Hún stoppar upp í hinar og þessar eyður sem ég vissi ekki að væru til staðar. (Nema hvað.)
Tesan er sú að vestræn menning sé of upptekin af poppkúltúr og sjálfinu til þess að íhuga pólitískt morð, þar sem einstaklingurinn vegur annan einstakling í þágu hreyfingar. Nema þegar árásarmaðurinn er geðveikur, en þar með eru hugsjónir hans ógildur hvati. Á öðrum sviðum hefur pólitískt ofbeldi beinst gegn almenningi, það er eitthvað sem Newton snertir á en, aftur, liggur það utan mæra bókarinnar. Kannske er það viðsnúningur hinnar hliðarinnar, þar sem einn áhrifamaður er ekki lengur gilt skotmark.
Einhvernveginn get ég ekki hætt að hugsa um DeLillo. Hann kemur í hugann aftur og aftur þegar ég les þessa bók. Libra náttúrulega, og Mao II.
Allavega, bókin missir aðeins fókusinn undir lokin, en í heild er hún frábær lesning, allt fram að enda. Skemmtilegar sögur, áhugaverðar pælingar, vel skrifuð. Hún stoppar upp í hinar og þessar eyður sem ég vissi ekki að væru til staðar. (Nema hvað.)
April 13, 2013
A dense, academic study of the assassination in the modern age starting from Lincoln and ending with Reagan. In addition to providing context to the political and populist circumstances of the various assassination, Newton spends much time on examining the assassins themselves, opening up very interesting views of nihilists, anarchists and eventually lonely outcasts of the 20th century. The books requires much efforts at times, particulalry on some of the less known assassinations (Russians nihilists by the second chapter is tough!), but is very rewarding both from a deeper understanding of well worn events such as RFK and JFK, but also from the perspective of the move from political to the fame-induced assassinations of recent years.
December 28, 2016
I tried hard to read this book but it's just so messy that I gave up .There's no cohesion and no style. It's curiously detached .To access the million footnotes ,for example,you are required to go online .
I didn't bother and am not sure many will.
One for the bargain bin only.
I didn't bother and am not sure many will.
One for the bargain bin only.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews