C'est ne pas une caricature.

 

US politicos tirelessly working for the good of the people during the horrible epidemic.

Dominic Lieven. In the Shadow of the Gods. The Emperors in World History.

     This is an easily read opus of a noted political scientist, a good man and a great erudite. Yet, it demonstrates that no erudition can replace sound historical methodology and original research, whether in archives or the field. First, the choice of the subject is based on Anglo-centric translation. This is a vagary of the latter that we call Chinese Huandi or Tianzi an Emperor, while the ancient rulers of Siam or Khmer Empire are called "Kings" as well as Egyptian-Greek rendering of "Pharaoh" is translated as the "King of Egypt". Empire can be defined as "Military-political dominion over polities with disparate socio-economic structure". If this, or similar definition are taken, most Chinese and Egyptian polities, as is properly mentioned by Lieven are not empires. Nor it will be surprising that the title of Emperor springs from Proconsul Imperium, which simply meant "A Commander of the Armed Forces". The rulers of the Roman Principate insisted that it was not "the King", Rex. 

    Second, Prince Lieven follows in the footsteps of Joseph de Mestre. Unholy Abbot considered the Kingdom of France as as close approximation of the Kingdom of G-d as is possible in this world. Lieven transfers this understanding to the British Empire. Nothing can compare with its political system, prowess of its military, its economic successes or its culture. Its horrible genocidal acts in Ireland and the Indian Raj (comprising modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) are not mentioned. 

    Third, he, as a brilliant conversationalist, is sometimes prone to the off the cuff remarks. For instance, he claims that the murderous Sultan Abdul Hamid built a modern Turkish Army, which supposedly exhibited "stellar performance" against the British, French and the Russians in the First World War. Gallipoli still hurts despite it being a poorly coordinated operation practically in Istanbul suburbs. In fact, the Turkish Army never succeeded in a single World War I offensive except for its "victory" in Armenian genocide. Lieven again mentions Peter Durnovo together with completely innocent Count Witte as prophets of doom advising against the war with Germany as a precursor to the socialist revolution in Russia. "Durnovo memorandum" is an easily identifiable fake. Moreover, Durnovo was hated by Nicolas II for his heavy-handed methods in running St. Petersburg police department -- for instance, raiding Brazilian Embassy to search for the letters of his mistress --- and was personally asked never to show up in the Council of the State. So he could not advise the Tsar on anything. 

Silvia Ferrara. The Greatest Invention.

 Never since reading "Social Conquest of Earth" by the untimely deceased E. O. Wilson, I felt a true intellectual titan of the author transpiring through all the imperfections of the book. The main one for SF is her drunkenness with superiority of her style, which sometimes makes better of her, especially in the second half of the book (compare with Falcke, Darling or Gaia Vince). In it she advertises the successes of her INSCRIBE group and cautions everyone against possible attempts at decipherment of the Cypro-Minoan. 

Joel Warner. The curse of Marquis de Sade.

 

The "divine marquis" (the words of Guillaume Apollinaire) is the second most misunderstood author of the Western Canon after Niccolo Machiavelli. I gobbled Joel Warner's book instantly on the bookshelves. The book does not fully penetrate into rather impenetrable De Sade, in particular, because the author tries to uphold him to the standards of the normal person. Not so, De Sade certainly was a textbook case of incongruously named "Borderline Personality Disorder" deprived of the benefit of the modern psychotropic medications.  

But the author goes far enough in recognizing that De Sade was a visionary who was so disgusted by what he saw in human nature that it drove him to the point of insanity. Some of the artistic influences such as Bunuel's L'Age d'Or are aptly described in the book. I did not like more recent "Quills" very much despite my admiration for Geoffrey Rush because it was so serious. Much better take was made by the French cartoonists who made the full-length animation on De Sade making its personages animals -- with Divine Marquis himself as a noble  Labrador retriever -- and the sadistic scenes of his writings as his imaginings in the prison cell of the Bastille. 

Marquis did not kill anyone in his life except maybe as a cavalry officer for the French Crown, and the war was and is currently considered a noble endeavor in the US. On the contrary, Napoleon, his jailer significantly depopulated contemporary Europe. 

The degree of derangement and vision of Marquis de Sade can be proven that one of the last of his manuscripts contain the drawings of the concentration camp barracks. With such knowledge, what forgiveness. 

Prince Macaroon.