Oh boy. As far as Sisi biographies go, I really wouldn't recommend this as a book for starters. There's a few reasons why I have issues with the conteOh boy. As far as Sisi biographies go, I really wouldn't recommend this as a book for starters. There's a few reasons why I have issues with the content of the book, but even on a more general level, this book is not fit as an introduction to the Sisi discourse, for two very important reasons:
- Bestenreiner assumes you already have some knowledge of the subject matter; - And, more importantly, there is no real chronology in the book.
I'll explain this a bit more. Knowledge on the subject matter includes trivia. She doesn't just assume this about Sisi and her life, but about other people (vaguely) connected to her as well. For instance, see page 197 in this edition: "Dessen Nachfolger war im Jahre 1982 der uns bereits aus zahlreichen Presseberichten bekannte Fürst Johannes (...)", which implies that the reader should know one of the recent successors to the House of Thurn und Taxis. In this case, not knowing this bit of trivia doesn't impede understanding. There's more of these little things in the book though, and there they might be confusing for some readers.
But in all honesty, previous knowledge is almost a requirement to make sense of the build-up of the book. Bestenreiner doesn't follow a chronological order, what order she did follow, I don't know. I'll name a few examples:
- The chapter on Elisabeth's sister Mathilde is largely about Elisabeth and her life in Vienna. This takes up so many pages, that she writes that we should come back to the subject matter of Mathilde. This is not the only time this happens - Bestenreiner will be discussing person X, be reminded of something that happens to this person that relates to Elisabeth, write about this interesting tidbit, then come back to what she was writing about in the first place. It's confusing. - Gisela's (Elisabeth's oldest surviving daughter) life is discussed in full without ever mentioning Rudolf (Elisabeth's son, of Mayerling fame). Rudolf is only discussed about 200 pages in, so at about 2/3 of the book. If you think she really gets into the interesting subject matter that is Rudolf, you are mistaken. Half of his chapter is dedicated to Emperor Franz-Joseph's "dear friend" Katharina Schratt. For no clear reason. This happens with a lot of the chapters.
Bestenreiner's way of building up her book is confusing. She does offer a timetable in the back of the book, but I think that a reader should be able to understand a non-fiction book without having to puzzle where each historical fact fits in. This is why I wouldn't recommend the book to someone who's not very familiar with the discourse. The lack of chronology makes the history more difficult to understand than it should be. Another downside of writing the book like this is that some events show up at two different places in the book. This means you sometimes read about the same event twice. In the same words. I don't think that's what you want as a reader.
The book has other 'faults'. Even though I can see Bestenreiner has researched a lot, you don't see a lot of sourcing throughout the book. Some direct quotes are quoted, some are not. About half of what gets quoted is from one of Brigitte Hamann's biographies. I understand, her books are great, but quoting so much from one or two books instead of from other (primary) sources, does not do a lot of good for your credibility. The frustrating thing is that you can see in the text that a lot of different sources must have been used for research, and yet not a lot of this shows up in the bibliography. Had I handed in a paper this way at university, I probably would've gotten some criticism on the credibility of my paper. I feel the same way about the research in this book. Another thing I was surprised about was the lack of any of Martha Schad's research in the bibliography. Schad is also one of the more famous researchers in the Sisi discourse, and worked on Marie Valerie's diary. I mention this because the bibliography didn't even list Marie Valerie's diary as one of the sources, even though it had been quoted from in the book. Sloppy sourcing really doesn't add to your credibility!
I also have a comment about the book's title. For a book that's called "Sisi und ihre Geschwister", or "Sisi and her brothers and sisters", there wasn't an awful lot of information about Sisi's brothers and sisters in there. Most of this is truly about Elisabeth. Bestenreiner ends her book with the hope that this book will introduce Sisi's brothers and sisters to the readers. I would have loved if this were the case. But unfortunately, most of the information on her brothers and sisters in this was already known to me (the earlier mentioned Hamann biographies also discuss Sisi's brothers and sisters). I would have loved if this book really had discussed them in more detail, but was disappointed in this regard.
My last point of criticism was in the way Bestenreiner has written this book. It was subjective, probably to make the book a more engaging read. But yet I am not interested in Bestenreiner's interpretation of facts, or speculations of what might have been or how things could've been prevented. I just don't think it adds anything to the discourse, personally (though there is a lot of it in this particular discourse, so it's not entirely Bestenreiner's fault). I also could've done without the plethora of exclamation marks. Never seen this many in a non-fiction work before.
I don't mean to say I completely hated this book. I didn't... I'm still fond of the subject matter, so of course I didn't hate it. But I was disappointed. Please, skip this as your first Sisi book and buy Brigitte Hamann's biography, "Kaiserin Wider Willen / The Reluctant Empress", instead. It's a much better way to spend your money, you'll get the same information, but it's presented more logically. It's a much better place to start....more
Reading this didn't feel like reading a book, it felt like reading columns in book-format. Judging by Raether's afterword, in which he says some of thReading this didn't feel like reading a book, it felt like reading columns in book-format. Judging by Raether's afterword, in which he says some of the main character's thoughts were inspired by columns he himself had written before, seems to confirm this thought. In all honesty, the plot of the book is paper-thin, lacks a build-up to such an extent that it's absolutely impossible to care for the character's journey, and the characters themselves aren't fleshed out in the slightest. The main point of this book is the musings of the main character.
Now, if you like Till Raether's columns, there's a good chance you'll like this book. If you're an avid reader of Raether's columns, you might encounter themes he's written about before, but you'll probably still enjoy this book. I was unfamiliar with Raether's work, but I think I could like his columns, if read sporadically. I didn't like the book much on the whole, but there are some thoughts I really liked, and the first chapter was hysterical. I was kind of disappointed that the rest of the book didn't live up to that first chapter, but what can you do. Maybe it's my fault. I don't say without reason that I'd only read his columns sporadically: even at just reading one chapter a day Raether's style bored me quite quickly, because it turns out that this genre isn't really my thing.
But, what really surprised me, is two certain musings from the main character that could literally be describing me. It's the first time I met a character that so clearly described my way of life and of music lessons, and it amused me. Moral of that story? Even if you don't like a book, there's always some things to enjoy. Anyway, next time someone asks me about my view on life, I'll know what to say. Thanks, Herr Raether.
"Ich lebte in ständiger Sorge um mein Karma. Karma bedeutete im hinduistischen und buddhistischen Weltverständnis ja eigentlich, dass einem jede gute oder schlechte Tat im nächsten Leben entsprechend vergolten wurde. Mein Problem war: Ich glaubte zwar an Karma, aber nicht an ein nächstes Leben. Das hieß, ich kriegte die Vergeltung noch in diesem Leben reingedrückt."
(I was constantly concerned about my karma. In the hindu and buddhist religion karma meant that each and every good or bad deed would be repaid in the next life. My problem was this: I did believe in karma, but not in reincarnation. That meant that the retaliation would take place in this life.) *
"Wenn mich (...) jemand gefragt hätte, was er mit seinem Leben anfangen sollte, ich hätte geantwortet: Lern ein absurdes Instrument. Je später, desto besser. Übe nie. Du wirst sehen, wie irre befreiend es ist."
(If someone had asked me what he should do with his life, I would have said: Learn how to play a ridiculous instrument. The later, the better. Don't practice - ever. You will see how strangely liberating it is.) *
* Poor translations by yours truly for the sake of this review....more
I picked up this book because I thought the title was very interesting. I was happily surprised that it had a sort of Christmas theme in it. It fits wI picked up this book because I thought the title was very interesting. I was happily surprised that it had a sort of Christmas theme in it. It fits with the time of year, after all!
Another thing that surprised me was that this wasn't an easy book to read at all. I had thought this to be a book for kids or young adults, but I've read literary articles that were easier to read than this book. I think that's just personal preference however: most of this book, at least the most important part of it, is a philosophical conversation between human Cecilie and angel Ariel. This format didn't just make the book a bit hard to read, it also illuminated very clearly that an actual plot was not the most important thing for the writer. For instance, Cecilie is very ill, and we do see glimpses of that, but never enough to make a real lasting impression. Characterization and plot are both not really expanded upon, to make way for the religious philosophy that's at the heart of the book.
Truthfully, I liked the philosophical thoughts portrayed in this book. Gaarder does a good job of mixing Bible references, Norse mythology references, as well as science (astronomy and evolution, mostly) into a comprehendable world-view. But, for me there were quite a few inconsistencies in the mythology:
(view spoiler)[- Angels aren't supposed to sense or feel things. This means that flying doens't bring them joy, touching snow doesn't make them feel the cold, etc. Ariel stresses very often that angels don't feel anything. But somehow they do feel the need to be alone every once in a while (as illustrated by the fact that Ariel sometimes goes to an asteroid I think it was because (s)he doesn't want to see anyone for a while). Also kind of strange: Ariel says they know everything they need to know. He can't forget or remember anything: every knowledge they need is present. But still they feel curious about how it is to be human. This is strange again: because curiosity is an emotion. I don't know, for me this seems inconsistent.
- God is portrayed as omniscient. But still, he didn't know how his creation would turn out, as he has no control over what he created. Maybe it's my interpretation of the word omniscient that's the problem here, but I think that shows God does not know everything. But then, how to draw the line? Odin for instance is not portrayed as omniscient, but he's said to have become omniscient through his ravens who inform him about everything, whereas God is omniscient by his own ability. But later Ariel says that God's many Angels keep him informed about people. I just find it confusing: what exactly is the definition of omniscient then? Is it just facts about the world as it is? Odin's ability to see the future is not addressed. The fact that God doesn't know how his creations would turn out, meaning that he doesn't know the future, does not diminish his ability to be omniscient. That being said, is Odin omniscient or is he not? It's just an example, but I think there were things in this book that weren't defined well enough.
- Ariel, as an entity without a body of flesh and blood, is able to a.o. move through walls. How is this still possible when he has Cecilie in his arms? Just being in Ariel's arms doesn't change the structure of Cecilie's body, and she should not be able to move through walls. This is not addressed or explained in the slightest.
- Ariel mentions in the beginning that there's not enough Angels to watch over ill people. But there's also far more Angels than humans - because who else can enjoy this universe? Certainly not humans, because they are bound to planet Earth, and Angels are not. Why can't there be more Angels looking after people then? The reason certainly isn't that there aren't enough Angels... so why?
- Speaking of Angels visiting the ill: sometimes they show themselves, but generally they don't. We never found out why Ariel decided to show himself to Cecilie, other than curiosity. But that doesn't explain why he chose her specifically, or why she was special. (hide spoiler)]
I might remember things a tad wrongly, as I did read this on the train and that's not generally the best place to read very attentively. But these things just strike me as odd, add to that the almost absent characterization and a wafer-thin plot, and I just didn't enjoy this book as much as I could have....more
This book by Rudolf Kleinpaul isn't so much a book to actually read through, as it is a reference book. As such, there's a wealth of information in heThis book by Rudolf Kleinpaul isn't so much a book to actually read through, as it is a reference book. As such, there's a wealth of information in here, so much that it's hardly possible to remember even half of it after a first read. The man is incredibly well-read, will cite medieval works, letters, and research; explain a million and one things; and also teach you ethymological roots of words while he's at it.
Basically, this book is quite a thorough introduction to the 'Middle Ages'. Does it discuss everything one can possibly know about the time period? Of course not. But it does tell one a lot, and despite being more of a reference book, it's not a dry read. Sure, there aren't always nice anecdotes, and sometimes he likes to make lists and talk about all of its entries seperately, which can get boring (e.g., so many different cheeses). And he will discuss topics you might not be interested in as much (for me: fashion, which he went on about in length).
Still, it's a good book. It was published in 1895 however, so I don't know how much of his research still holds up today. I have some knowledge of German medieval history, but not enough to judge how much of this information is still what we believe today. Also the man talks about the whole of Europe, and that I really cannot judge.
But the book seems convincing enough, and as a lot of medieval research was done in the 19th century and is still used today (e.g. the work by the Grimm brothers), I'm sure that it is a good read for everyone interested in this time period. It's also adorned with 465 very interesting drawings, which will definitely enhance your reading experience. To give you a taste of the information you will find inside this book:
Did you know that Karl der Grosse (Charlemagne/Charles The Great) only wanted to eat meat, liked gardening, and tried to make learning available to all? Did you know that his dad was called Pippin der Kleine (Pippin the Small, which is funny as the literal translation of Karl's name is Karl the Big)? Did you know that the word "rabbit" developed from "rare bit", as rabbits used to be rare in England, and even non-existent until the Normans or Romans brought them along? Did you know that the English thought killing a fox was as bad as killing a close family member (the reason why has to do with the fox hunt)? Did you know they called beer "liquid bread"? Did you know there are folk stories that liken giants (whose names have their roots in "Hungry" and "Thirsty") to the nobility, and that the stories are supposed to teach the nobility they should treat farmers kindly, as without them there was no food? Did you know that if it turned out that someone was a heretic after his death, the body would be dug up and put on trial? And that the body would be found guilty and burned, so as to remove all heresy from this world?
If you didn't, and like these tidbits of information, this is definitely the right book for you. And though the hardcover edition I have is very pretty, the book should be available online for free as an eBook, so definitely give it a shot if you want to learn more about the Medium Aevum....more