Kaitlyn > Recent Status Updates

An intricately detailed scheme of religious manipulation and control. The discussions of ignorance and happiness are particularly interesting. The belief Hasan holds that the enlightened should control the ignorant is poignant.

Abu Ali’s monologue is a masterclass in manipulation.

A very interesting exploration of the pathology of religion, without actually calling it that. It’s easy to see the subconscious functions of religious fervor from, as well as the ways it can be manipulated, from the outside. And it’s also easy to collate that with other religious, social, and political ideologies and learned identities.

“Both Blimps and highbrows took for granted. as though it were a law of nature, the divorce between patriotism and intelligence. If you were a patriot you read Blackwood’s Magazine and publicly thanked God that you were ‘not brainy’. If you were an intellectual you sniggered at the Union Jack and regarded physical courage as barbarous.”

Really easy to follow the narrative; I can almost see it in my head. I find myself wondering about the structure of the Seljuq defenses. Hopefully, Asbridge will go into whatever detail is available in later chapters.

Easy to read so far; assumes little to no understanding of the Middle Ages in Europe and the Levant.

It’s dense and difficult at points; there are several repeated names and a lot of chronologically overlapping narratives. It reads more like a sourcebook than a popular history at times, but Lewis does tell colorful stories based on historic accounts (with an appropriate amount of skepticism). I’d be lying though if I said it didn’t inspire interest to keep digging.

It’s dense with names and dates, some of which seem to show up out of nowhere without context and aren’t mentioned again. It assumes a basic familiarity with Islamic caliphates and their structure, which makes it difficult to follow at times.

The new introduction was written in the earliest days of the American war on terror, when Western views of the Arab world were skewed beyond measure. There’s an obvious parallel between the orientalist ideals of historic writers and modern perceptions of Islam, and it is one that is still relevant today. Beyond that, the first chapter feels much like a sourcebook, a quick historiography of the Assassins as of 1968.

It’s a memoir to misguided American arrogance in war. It describes in detail the American pathological approach to conflict and what exactly it stems from. I like it a lot.

Too short to be particularly intensive, but incredible insight into the overarching military and rhetorical developments that accompanied technological innovation following WWII. There are so many puzzle pieces that build American identity, but there are also so many that build upon themselves, so much so that they seem fragile. Recycled rhetoric based on past exaggeration and hyperbole stand out in particular.

The incompetence behind the Cold War, veiled by American bravado and nationalism, never fails to make me feel like maybe I am capable of anything. We’re taught in school about a good vs. evil showdown that was decided by technological advancements and moral purity. We’re not taught about the psychological aspects—the fear, the confusion, the chaos in our governing ranks. My education seems shallow to me now.

I appreciate Dower’s brevity. Some could wax poetic on American global influence, and some do it well, but Dower’s intent here favors brevity. He carefully deconstructs our understanding of violence and how we quantify it to make us question the reality of an American Century. It’s something I think about often, deconstructing these ideas of national identity that become personal, given time and repetition.

Herr’s account truly reflects the unrestricted access of correspondents to the front that was both unprecedented in earlier conflicts and unmatched in later ones. This dynamic is interesting to see in his interactions with grunts, his fear, and his intimate understanding of both.

The prose makes me question my own expectations of what a memoir should read like. As a journalism student, I have a rigid understanding of grammatical right and wrong. But that rigidity would not quite capture Herr’s experience; it would water it down and process it into nothing.

It makes you realize the true scope of what falls through the cracks when it comes to war reporting. While some details and events get dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of the war, they stay with reporters in a profound way. The experiences shared in this book have a value that goes beyond historiography.

“One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting…The people who wrote pamphlets against us and vilified us in the newspapers all remained safe at home, or at worst in the newspaper offices of Valencia, hundreds of miles from the bullets and the mud.”