What do you think?
Rate this book
Англия и Франция мы любим ненавидеть друг друга: 1000 Years of Annoying the French
Was the Battle of Hastings a French victory?
Non! William the Conqueror was Norman and hated the French.
Were the Brits really responsible for the death of Joan of Arc?
Non! The French sentenced her to death for wearing trousers.
Was the guillotine a French invention?
Non! It was invented in Yorkshire.
Ten centuries' worth of French historical 'facts' bite the dust as Stephen Clarke looks at what has really been going on since 1066 ...
Non! William the Conqueror was Norman and hated the French.
Were the Brits really responsible for the death of Joan of Arc?
Non! The French sentenced her to death for wearing trousers.
Was the guillotine a French invention?
Non! It was invented in Yorkshire.
Ten centuries' worth of French historical 'facts' bite the dust as Stephen Clarke looks at what has really been going on since 1066 ...
462 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
965 people are currently reading
4662 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Clarke
31 books412 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Stephen Clarke is the bestselling author of seven books of fiction and nonfiction that satirize the peculiarities of French culture. In 2004, he self-published A Year in the Merde, a comic novel skewering contemporary French society. The novel was an instant success and has led to numerous follow-ups, including Dial M for Merde (2008), 1,000 Years of Annoying the French (2010), and Paris Revealed (2011). After working as a journalist for a French press group for ten years, Paris-based Clarke now has a regular spot on French cable TV, poking fun at French culture.
Stephen Clarke is the bestselling author of seven books of fiction and nonfiction that satirize the peculiarities of French culture. In 2004, he self-published A Year in the Merde, a comic novel skewering contemporary French society. The novel was an instant success and has led to numerous follow-ups, including Dial M for Merde (2008), 1,000 Years of Annoying the French (2010), and Paris Revealed (2011). After working as a journalist for a French press group for ten years, Paris-based Clarke now has a regular spot on French cable TV, poking fun at French culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 479 reviews
July 21, 2023
This book starts with the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings, where the Duke of Normandy (which is in France) had a very decisive victory against the British. It is explained that the naming of Normandy came from the Normans (Vikings) who settled there. This is all just to point out that the British may have lost, but not (just) to the French. Though technically, the invading army did come from France. This pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the book.
It’s clear the author spent a lot of time researching all the facts, and this is very much appreciated. There are of course a lot of wars covered here, as is always the case with history books. Where the important people go to war, while all the other people die in them. I did learn quite a few interesting things along the way though. Like what the real Richard the Lionheart and his brother John were like, not just how they are depicted in the countless Robin Hood adaptations. Or how British propaganda is responsible for Napoleon’s false reputation. And I learned some fascinating things about the colonization of America. Like the many, many, many embarrassing mistakes that were made. And how problematic it was for everyone involved.
There’s one thing that did irk me quite a bit though. Whenever in history the British suffered a loss, the author always comes up with a handy excuse or turns it around so that the British come out as the moral victors. While whenever the British won, the British author can’t help but gloat over the British superiority and kick down on the French. This is done on purpose, the humoristic tone is added to make the story a bit less dry and more entertaining. And it works up to a certain point. Though after a while it does get quite annoying. Which makes the title very fitting for this book, just not for the French alone. I think the book could have used a little bit of poking fun at the British every once in a while, to balance things out and make this interpretation of history come across as a bit more objective. Though maybe this book would be even better served with a companion novel, depicting the same events but from a French point of view, while poking fun at the British. Especially considering the length of this book.
Another thing that should not be left unsaid is the part about colonization. Because this book shines a big bright spotlight on all the notable mistakes the French made and even some of the successes the British achieved, but tries to be as brief as possible about everything the British did wrong. It is very important to understand that you don’t get to see the whole picture here. The British part is casually mentioned in a few sentences here and there, while the French part takes up multiple long chapters.
For example, the author says: “Unlike the Brits, who mainly steered clear of long colonial wars and advised France to do the same, the French dug in, pitching their greatest generals against the Vietnamese rebels.” But it’s never mentioned how long the British colonial wars lasted for, or even how many of them there were. So how can we compare the two? Also, if you read this sentence correctly, it says the Brits stayed clear of LONG colonial wars. What does the author mean by long? It’s just a sentence that can imply things or at least leaves it open to interpretation. And a lot is said about India for example. But there’s only a handful of sentences mentioning that the British were there to fill their pockets too. While the rest of the chapter is quite detailed about what the French did there.
The thing is, this all just feels a bit disproportionate. I mean, like half the countries in the world right now have an independence day to celebrate their independence from the British. That’s something that I do feel could have at least been mentioned a bit more clearly, to balance things out, instead of focusing so much on what the French did wrong. Though I do appreciate that some mistakes the British made during certain conflicts are at least mentioned throughout the book.
The author also concludes this book by saying: “we can proudly affirm that, right down at DNA level, we’re not the same as the French. Vive la différence! (Long live the difference!)” Which honestly summarizes the essence of the problem, not just of the French/British conflicts. French and British history overlaps so much during the last thousand years, it’s impossible to separate one from the other. And yet some people still see things as “us” versus “them.” What this book should have concluded with is by saying that we’re all human. We all make mistakes. What’s done is done. Let’s learn from our mistakes and move on from them. It’s never been “us” versus “them.” It’s just been “us” the whole time, fighting amongst each other. And now it’s time to put our differences aside and start working together as one people, living together on the same planet and facing the same problems.
The book is what the title suggests. It’s a thousand years worth of conflicts between the British and the French, where the British author pokes fun at the French from start to finish. It very much focuses on one side of the story though. With the French losses and mistakes being the prime focus of this book. While the British part of the story doesn’t feel properly explored at times. So you don’t really get to see the full picture.
It’s clear the author spent a lot of time researching all the facts, and this is very much appreciated. There are of course a lot of wars covered here, as is always the case with history books. Where the important people go to war, while all the other people die in them. I did learn quite a few interesting things along the way though. Like what the real Richard the Lionheart and his brother John were like, not just how they are depicted in the countless Robin Hood adaptations. Or how British propaganda is responsible for Napoleon’s false reputation. And I learned some fascinating things about the colonization of America. Like the many, many, many embarrassing mistakes that were made. And how problematic it was for everyone involved.
There’s one thing that did irk me quite a bit though. Whenever in history the British suffered a loss, the author always comes up with a handy excuse or turns it around so that the British come out as the moral victors. While whenever the British won, the British author can’t help but gloat over the British superiority and kick down on the French. This is done on purpose, the humoristic tone is added to make the story a bit less dry and more entertaining. And it works up to a certain point. Though after a while it does get quite annoying. Which makes the title very fitting for this book, just not for the French alone. I think the book could have used a little bit of poking fun at the British every once in a while, to balance things out and make this interpretation of history come across as a bit more objective. Though maybe this book would be even better served with a companion novel, depicting the same events but from a French point of view, while poking fun at the British. Especially considering the length of this book.
Another thing that should not be left unsaid is the part about colonization. Because this book shines a big bright spotlight on all the notable mistakes the French made and even some of the successes the British achieved, but tries to be as brief as possible about everything the British did wrong. It is very important to understand that you don’t get to see the whole picture here. The British part is casually mentioned in a few sentences here and there, while the French part takes up multiple long chapters.
For example, the author says: “Unlike the Brits, who mainly steered clear of long colonial wars and advised France to do the same, the French dug in, pitching their greatest generals against the Vietnamese rebels.” But it’s never mentioned how long the British colonial wars lasted for, or even how many of them there were. So how can we compare the two? Also, if you read this sentence correctly, it says the Brits stayed clear of LONG colonial wars. What does the author mean by long? It’s just a sentence that can imply things or at least leaves it open to interpretation. And a lot is said about India for example. But there’s only a handful of sentences mentioning that the British were there to fill their pockets too. While the rest of the chapter is quite detailed about what the French did there.
The thing is, this all just feels a bit disproportionate. I mean, like half the countries in the world right now have an independence day to celebrate their independence from the British. That’s something that I do feel could have at least been mentioned a bit more clearly, to balance things out, instead of focusing so much on what the French did wrong. Though I do appreciate that some mistakes the British made during certain conflicts are at least mentioned throughout the book.
The author also concludes this book by saying: “we can proudly affirm that, right down at DNA level, we’re not the same as the French. Vive la différence! (Long live the difference!)” Which honestly summarizes the essence of the problem, not just of the French/British conflicts. French and British history overlaps so much during the last thousand years, it’s impossible to separate one from the other. And yet some people still see things as “us” versus “them.” What this book should have concluded with is by saying that we’re all human. We all make mistakes. What’s done is done. Let’s learn from our mistakes and move on from them. It’s never been “us” versus “them.” It’s just been “us” the whole time, fighting amongst each other. And now it’s time to put our differences aside and start working together as one people, living together on the same planet and facing the same problems.
The book is what the title suggests. It’s a thousand years worth of conflicts between the British and the French, where the British author pokes fun at the French from start to finish. It very much focuses on one side of the story though. With the French losses and mistakes being the prime focus of this book. While the British part of the story doesn’t feel properly explored at times. So you don’t really get to see the full picture.
October 10, 2012
I am divided on this book. On one hand it’s an encompassing history lesson covering 1,000 years. A millennium which shows that no matter the country, history is mostly about greed and back stabbing, which translates into political/economical alliances or in medieval times, marrying into another kingdom to increase one’s land and domination. Meanwhile, in the background, the people can starve.
On the other hand, I am French, and I have discovered at my expense that this book does exactly what it says on the cover: it annoyed me. With such an amazing portrayal of French hypocrisy and silliness I think “1,000 Years” would fit nicely on the book shelves of Francophobes. In it they will find a full supply of delightful anecdotes, giving them all the amunitions they need to silence the arrogant French. Here are just a few:
William the Conqueror and Napoleon-the-dwarf (with very little body parts): they weren’t even French.
Baguettes and croissants: two Austrian inventions.
Edith Piaf and Coco Chanel: both were pro Nazi (to add to the fun, on page 448 the Wehrmacht troops are depicted whistling “Non Rien de Rien”, a song that has only been written in 1960 by Charles Dumont. I know, I subjected myself to the movie on Edith Piaf. British TV channels show about 10 foreign movies per year, if that. While in France 40% of the material broadcast on TV is made abroad.)
De Gaulle: An imbecile who couldn’t keep any plan secret.
WW2: a time where France was full of collaborators and women selling their bodies to soldiers.
The list is long because it being tongue in cheek, “1,000 Years” depicts a France that has nothing to be proud of. Thankfully we live in modern times and le ridicule ne tue plus. Ouf!
On the other hand, I am French, and I have discovered at my expense that this book does exactly what it says on the cover: it annoyed me. With such an amazing portrayal of French hypocrisy and silliness I think “1,000 Years” would fit nicely on the book shelves of Francophobes. In it they will find a full supply of delightful anecdotes, giving them all the amunitions they need to silence the arrogant French. Here are just a few:
William the Conqueror and Napoleon-the-dwarf (with very little body parts): they weren’t even French.
Baguettes and croissants: two Austrian inventions.
Edith Piaf and Coco Chanel: both were pro Nazi (to add to the fun, on page 448 the Wehrmacht troops are depicted whistling “Non Rien de Rien”, a song that has only been written in 1960 by Charles Dumont. I know, I subjected myself to the movie on Edith Piaf. British TV channels show about 10 foreign movies per year, if that. While in France 40% of the material broadcast on TV is made abroad.)
De Gaulle: An imbecile who couldn’t keep any plan secret.
WW2: a time where France was full of collaborators and women selling their bodies to soldiers.
The list is long because it being tongue in cheek, “1,000 Years” depicts a France that has nothing to be proud of. Thankfully we live in modern times and le ridicule ne tue plus. Ouf!
August 5, 2011
Canada of course is a bilingual country. Except of course in Quebec where they refuse to speak English. If you speak to anyone in Quebec in English they will ignore you. Luckily I have a French Canadian husband so he can do my speaking for me as I tend to freeze up when spoken to in French. He also comes in very handy in Paris where they tend to also ignore English if they feel like it - they usually do. Would I want him to read this book. Probably not!
In Western Canada where I grew up we learned French in school, Parisian French...not Quebecois French. We did not have a great affection for the province of Quebec when I was growing up. I found this book absolutely hilarious. What a wonderful way to understand the historical significance of the events that have shaped Anglo-French relations for the past 1,000 years. Clarke covers the Battle of Hastings in 1066, The Hundred Years War, losing Canada on the Plains of Abraham (that was the French losing), Napoleon's defeat and every major event in Anglo-French relations.
I highly recommend this book for English Canadians! And yes I have walked on the Plains of Abraham and yes I felt triumphant!
In Western Canada where I grew up we learned French in school, Parisian French...not Quebecois French. We did not have a great affection for the province of Quebec when I was growing up. I found this book absolutely hilarious. What a wonderful way to understand the historical significance of the events that have shaped Anglo-French relations for the past 1,000 years. Clarke covers the Battle of Hastings in 1066, The Hundred Years War, losing Canada on the Plains of Abraham (that was the French losing), Napoleon's defeat and every major event in Anglo-French relations.
I highly recommend this book for English Canadians! And yes I have walked on the Plains of Abraham and yes I felt triumphant!
August 18, 2012
As tongue in cheek as the title sounds, this is an informative history book that charts 1000 years of Anglo-French mutual adoration loathing. Stephen Clarke leaves no stone unturned as he charts events surrounding the momentous events from history involving the two countries.
The text is as tongue in cheek as you would expect and there are giggles aplenty. The first big laugh I had was when Clarke described William II (informally known as Rufus) of England as "a medieval Paris Hilton" for his indulgences and a love of "make up, dresses and yappy little dogs".
He takes delight in pointing out that William the Conqueror was not French and that he loathed them as much as they loathed him and his barbaric Norman ways.
He recounts trips to Crecy and Azincourt (not Agincourt which is hundreds of miles away from the true battle site - with the z) and paints a less than glowing picture of Joan of Arc, religious zealot and manipulative egomaniac. Mary Queen of Scots passing was treated with indifference by the Scots (a people she had little regard for) and was designed to annoy - yes you've guessed - the French.
The book is over six hundred pages and as it says on the cover, discusses our relationship until the present day.
The narrative flows well and is littered with jokes such as those mentioned above. But this is not history dumbed down, it is as informative as any core text book. Who knew that modern champagne was invented in England, that Dom Perignon tried to remove the fizziness from the French stuff because the bottles kept exploding whereas the English went crazy for it and the fizzier the better?
Clarke's research is seemingly watertight, backed up with documentary evidence and apolitical despite the light-hearted subject matter. Neither is it xenophobic, Clarke lives in France and is also keen to stress the faults of the English in the relationship as he is to point out the French faults. He is also keen to defend the French where appropriate. During the Falklands War for example, the right wing press in the UK insisted that the French were helping Argentina because the equipment used in the invasion had been sold to them by the French. They ignored three things... 1) the arms deal had been pushed through decades before the conflict... 2) the French military trained British secret services in how to disable Exocets and 3) they loaned our military several aircraft to learn how to work against them. Entente Cordiale is not as dead as some would like to pretend.
This is a great introduction to anybody wanting to understand the peculiar relationship between two countries separated by a 30 mile stretch of water and 1000 years of colourful history.
See more book reviews at my blog
The text is as tongue in cheek as you would expect and there are giggles aplenty. The first big laugh I had was when Clarke described William II (informally known as Rufus) of England as "a medieval Paris Hilton" for his indulgences and a love of "make up, dresses and yappy little dogs".
He takes delight in pointing out that William the Conqueror was not French and that he loathed them as much as they loathed him and his barbaric Norman ways.
He recounts trips to Crecy and Azincourt (not Agincourt which is hundreds of miles away from the true battle site - with the z) and paints a less than glowing picture of Joan of Arc, religious zealot and manipulative egomaniac. Mary Queen of Scots passing was treated with indifference by the Scots (a people she had little regard for) and was designed to annoy - yes you've guessed - the French.
The book is over six hundred pages and as it says on the cover, discusses our relationship until the present day.
The narrative flows well and is littered with jokes such as those mentioned above. But this is not history dumbed down, it is as informative as any core text book. Who knew that modern champagne was invented in England, that Dom Perignon tried to remove the fizziness from the French stuff because the bottles kept exploding whereas the English went crazy for it and the fizzier the better?
Clarke's research is seemingly watertight, backed up with documentary evidence and apolitical despite the light-hearted subject matter. Neither is it xenophobic, Clarke lives in France and is also keen to stress the faults of the English in the relationship as he is to point out the French faults. He is also keen to defend the French where appropriate. During the Falklands War for example, the right wing press in the UK insisted that the French were helping Argentina because the equipment used in the invasion had been sold to them by the French. They ignored three things... 1) the arms deal had been pushed through decades before the conflict... 2) the French military trained British secret services in how to disable Exocets and 3) they loaned our military several aircraft to learn how to work against them. Entente Cordiale is not as dead as some would like to pretend.
This is a great introduction to anybody wanting to understand the peculiar relationship between two countries separated by a 30 mile stretch of water and 1000 years of colourful history.
See more book reviews at my blog
dnf
June 15, 2021this was funny for the first 5 pages and then the "humour" got very grating. there are ways to make a non-fiction book humorous; this is not an example.
April 1, 2011
You don’t have to be a Brit or an Anglophile or even a Francophobe to appreciate this book but it helps. Stephen Clarke takes a potted look at 1000 years of Anglo-French relations from the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 to President Sarkozy’s visit in 2008 and reveals that all of France’s failures in those thousand years were due to the machinations of the Brits and France’s successes (few and far between, according to Clarke) were actually achieved by someone else who was distinctly not French. Is monsieur annoyed by now? Tres bien.
Amongst all the good natured ribbing, Stephen Clarke gives an interesting history lesson on these two countries peppered with anecdotes and trivia. For example, Joan of Arc was actually sentenced to death not because she could hear the voice of God but because she wore trousers (it’s slightly more complicated than that but that’s the gist of it. She wore pantaloons. Burn her at the stake!)
One sided and biased (and that’s not a criticism), 1000 Years of Annoying the French is a very good primer on the history of France and Britain and if you already know the history of these two long time rivals, then Clarke’s book gives an irreverent twist to the well known events and make you exclaim, “Yes! This is why I love reading about history!” Well, it made me exclaim that anyway. Don’t know about you.
Amongst all the good natured ribbing, Stephen Clarke gives an interesting history lesson on these two countries peppered with anecdotes and trivia. For example, Joan of Arc was actually sentenced to death not because she could hear the voice of God but because she wore trousers (it’s slightly more complicated than that but that’s the gist of it. She wore pantaloons. Burn her at the stake!)
One sided and biased (and that’s not a criticism), 1000 Years of Annoying the French is a very good primer on the history of France and Britain and if you already know the history of these two long time rivals, then Clarke’s book gives an irreverent twist to the well known events and make you exclaim, “Yes! This is why I love reading about history!” Well, it made me exclaim that anyway. Don’t know about you.
January 13, 2020
Dobrze się bawiłem czytając tę książkę. Jest zabawna, ale autor nie przesądza z dowcipem. Klarownie i chyba wyczerpującąco przedstawia stosunki brytyjsko - francuskie na przestrzeni wieków. Ale sedno tej "relacji" sprowadza się do przekłuwania balonika narodowej dumy Francuzów. W zasadzie autor bierze "pod pióro" każdą niemal francuską świętość i wykazuje, że zawdzięczają ją Brytyjczykom lub że nie mają racji chełpiąc się swoją przewagą. Począwszy od najazdu normańskiego (to oczywiste, że nie dokonali jej Frankowie), po współczesność.
Przydałoby się coś takiego zrobić Polakom. A.D. 2020 autor takiej książki dostałby w tym kraju łatkę zdrajcy. Ale miałby co robić: od Sarmatów po Holokaust. Oj, bolałoby. Ale jeśli zrobić to dobrze... :)
Przydałoby się coś takiego zrobić Polakom. A.D. 2020 autor takiej książki dostałby w tym kraju łatkę zdrajcy. Ale miałby co robić: od Sarmatów po Holokaust. Oj, bolałoby. Ale jeśli zrobić to dobrze... :)
April 9, 2013
Fun read, full of trivia and some not so trivial bits of information. There are two sides to any arguement, and we've been argueing for about a 1000 years.
Deals with some areas of history which I enjoy reading about, and some areas that I'm not familliar with. Have to look out for more books by Clarke.
Deals with some areas of history which I enjoy reading about, and some areas that I'm not familliar with. Have to look out for more books by Clarke.
Read
December 17, 2012This is not just a book filled with subtle humour and facts galore, it is a veritable history lesson. Despite the title, it is not an anti-French manifesto, far from it. As well as plenty of passage highlighting reasons to love the French, it reminds us of the many things the world has to thank France for. That said, it also takes time to debunk some myths that the French love to trot out. The fact that le croissant was a Belgian invention is particularly irksome to my French friends.
As well all know, the English have always taken a tongue-in-cheek pride at infuriating our near neighbours across the water and this book does true justice to this now, thankfully, peaceful continental rivalry. Of course, there are parts of the book that tackle the issues of our war time differences and how such things are stitched into the fabric of our two nations. It will no surprise you that the subject of food, le cuisine, comes up too. We laught at (while, in may case, loving beyond most others)their hoity-toity food and wine supping ways; they, in turn, are noted as ridiculing our stodgy, bland, unimaginative menus and beer swillinh culture.
Overall, it is a great history lesson and riveting read. We, as Brits, have been annoying the French for many a century. The fact that we are now European partners does not, however, take away from the humour, accuracy and brilliance of this book. You will feel better educated on Anglo-French relations when you have read it.
As well all know, the English have always taken a tongue-in-cheek pride at infuriating our near neighbours across the water and this book does true justice to this now, thankfully, peaceful continental rivalry. Of course, there are parts of the book that tackle the issues of our war time differences and how such things are stitched into the fabric of our two nations. It will no surprise you that the subject of food, le cuisine, comes up too. We laught at (while, in may case, loving beyond most others)their hoity-toity food and wine supping ways; they, in turn, are noted as ridiculing our stodgy, bland, unimaginative menus and beer swillinh culture.
Overall, it is a great history lesson and riveting read. We, as Brits, have been annoying the French for many a century. The fact that we are now European partners does not, however, take away from the humour, accuracy and brilliance of this book. You will feel better educated on Anglo-French relations when you have read it.
May 7, 2013
This is a very long book, nearly 700 pages, as might be expected from a book that covers a millenium's worth of Anglo-French relations in great detail. The author is British but has lived on both sides of the channel, and he lobs potshots in each direction. I learned a surprising number of things, such as:
1. Many things traditionally thought of as French, such as the guillotine, champagne and William of Normandy, were not French.
2. During World War II, the British hated their French allies almost as much as they hated their Soviet allies.
3. Voltaire was an enthusiastic Anglophile.
The chapters come with delightful sub-headings, such as "In India and Tahiti: France Gets Lost In Paradise: A selection of historical Frenchmen lose India, fail to notice Australia and give sexually transmitted diseases to Pacific islanders" and "How Britain Killed Off the Last French Royals: And the Victorians said, 'It was an accident, honest.' Three times."
If you're willing to wade through so many pages, this is a delightful read. I really enjoyed it.
1. Many things traditionally thought of as French, such as the guillotine, champagne and William of Normandy, were not French.
2. During World War II, the British hated their French allies almost as much as they hated their Soviet allies.
3. Voltaire was an enthusiastic Anglophile.
The chapters come with delightful sub-headings, such as "In India and Tahiti: France Gets Lost In Paradise: A selection of historical Frenchmen lose India, fail to notice Australia and give sexually transmitted diseases to Pacific islanders" and "How Britain Killed Off the Last French Royals: And the Victorians said, 'It was an accident, honest.' Three times."
If you're willing to wade through so many pages, this is a delightful read. I really enjoyed it.
July 6, 2022
I learned and laughed.
Stephen Clarke. Funny funny guy. Also, an excellent historian. Now I finally understand the relationship between France and Britain. I have howled with laughter and read pages and pages aloud to my husband.
I can’t begin to count how many times I’d read something and go google to find out more. I’ve been deep in rabbit holes daily.
It’s been sheer bliss.
This is the best history book I’ve ever read. It was hilarious, but more importantly, I’m amazed by how much history I learned.
Stephen Clarke. Funny funny guy. Also, an excellent historian. Now I finally understand the relationship between France and Britain. I have howled with laughter and read pages and pages aloud to my husband.
I can’t begin to count how many times I’d read something and go google to find out more. I’ve been deep in rabbit holes daily.
It’s been sheer bliss.
This is the best history book I’ve ever read. It was hilarious, but more importantly, I’m amazed by how much history I learned.
Read
February 2, 2025I think it's time to face up to the facts: I will never finish this book.
I tried to read it. I loved the fun cover, the fun tone, the cheekiness, the fact that it's a long, well-researched history. Alas, whenever I picked it up, I ended up setting it back down. It was a bit... much. It was memorable and I learned things, but I just couldn't keep reading it. "Ahaha!" the writer seems to say constantly and in a tongue-in-cheek manner, "How much better we are than the French!"
But eventually, one tires of being much better than the French. What was fun (and funny) becomes tiresome. I couldn't go on. Alas! :( And it was a book my brother gave me, too. I wanted to read it for his sake, but... but.
(No. No! I must not give it another try! *grabs herself by the shoulders* IT WON'T WORK OUT, YOU KNOW THIS!)
I tried to read it. I loved the fun cover, the fun tone, the cheekiness, the fact that it's a long, well-researched history. Alas, whenever I picked it up, I ended up setting it back down. It was a bit... much. It was memorable and I learned things, but I just couldn't keep reading it. "Ahaha!" the writer seems to say constantly and in a tongue-in-cheek manner, "How much better we are than the French!"
But eventually, one tires of being much better than the French. What was fun (and funny) becomes tiresome. I couldn't go on. Alas! :( And it was a book my brother gave me, too. I wanted to read it for his sake, but... but.
(No. No! I must not give it another try! *grabs herself by the shoulders* IT WON'T WORK OUT, YOU KNOW THIS!)
January 5, 2021
ประวัติศาสตร์ฟรั่งเศสที่เขียนโดยชาวอังกฤษ Sephen Clarke นักเขียนเจ้าของซีรี่ย์นิยาย Merde ที่เป็นผลงานระดับ Best Seller และเจ้าตัวเคลมว่า”น่าจะเที่ยงตรงกว่าของพวกฝรั่งเศส” และแน่นอนว่าเมื่อ Clarke เป็นผู้เขียน ประวัติศาสตร์ฉบับนี้จึงเขียนด้วยสำนวนยียวนชวนหัวที่อ่านสนุกจนบางช่วงถึงกับเผลอหลุดขำลั่นบ้านเลยด้วยซ้ำ
เมื่อมันเป็นหนังสือที่เขียนโดยคนอังกฤษ ประวัติศาสตร์ที่บอกเล่าในเล่มจึงเป็นเรื่องราวของชาวฝรั่งเศสในส่วนที่ต้องข้องเกี่ยวกับพวกแองโกล-แซกซอนเป็นส่วนใหญ่ ไล่เรียงมาตั้งแต่ยุคสมัยก่อนที่จะมีการนิยามตัวตนกันว่าใครเป็นชาวฝรั่งเศสในศตวรรษที่9 เรื่อยมาจนถึงยุคสมัยหลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่2
ตัวผมมีมุมมองต่อหนังสือเล่มนี้แยกเป็น2ส่วน ส่วนแรกเป็นเรื่องของข้อมูลทางประวัติศาสตร์ ผู้เขียนทำการบ้านมาดีมากในการหาข้อมูลเพื่อโต้ตอบเรื่องเล่าขานของชาวฝรั่งเศสทำให้ผู้อ่านอย่างเราได้เห็นมุมมองที่กว้างขวางขึ้นของหลายๆเหตุการณ์ในประวัติศาสตร์ ไม่ว่าจะเป็นเรื่องการตายของ”โจนออฟอาร์ก”นี่เป็นเพราะการรุกรานของพวกอังกฤษล้วนๆหรือการเมืองภายในฝรั่งเศสเองกันแน่? ทำไมฝรั่งเศสถึงส่งมอบเทพีเสรีภาพในอเมริกาเพื่อเฉลิมฉลองการประกาศอิสระภาพผจากอังกฤษ)? เหตุใดชาวสก็อตถึงไม่ยอมรับราชินีแมรี่ที่1 จนนำไปสู่บทสรุปแสนเศร้าของพระนางกันนะ? คือก็บอกไม่ได้เต็มปากหรอกว่ามันเป็นหนังสือประวัติศาสตร์ฝรั่งเศสที่เป็นกลางเพราะมันเจือมุมมองของชาวอังกฤษอย่างเข้มข้น แต่มันให้ภาพประวัติศาสตร์ที่มีมิติกว้างและลึกขึ้นทำให้อะไรๆที่เราเข้าใจเรื่องราวในตำนานต่างๆได้แจ่มชัดขึ้น
ส่วนที่2 เป็นเรื่องสำนวนการเขียนของผู้เขียน Stephen Clarke เป็นนักเขียนที่ถนัดการเขียนแนวเสียดสี ที่มีลีลาฉกาจหาตัวจับยาก หนำซ้ำยังรุ่มรวยอารมณ์ขัน ผมชอบการหยิบแกมหยอกของชาวอังกฤษ-ฝรั่งเศสแน่ล่ะว่ามันออกชังๆหน่อยแต่พวกเขาให้เกียรติกันและกันมากเลยนะ มันเป็นการจิก-กัดโดยไม่รุ้สึกถึงการ”เหยียด” ซึ่งทำออกมาได้น่ารักมาก น่ารักแบบที่คิดไม่ออกว่าเหล่าชาติในอาเซียนจะเขียนถึงประเทศเพื่อนบ้านได้น่ารักแบบนี้ ตัวผมอยากให้เรามีหนังสือประวัติศาสตร์ประเทศเพื่อนบ้านที่เขียนได้อารมณ์สนิทกันขนาดนี้บ้าง
ในส่วนของหนังสือฉบับแปลไทยโดยสำนักพิมพ์ Freeform นักแปลสำนวนดีมากถ่ายทอดอารมณ์ของผู้เขียนออกมาไให้สัมผัสได้ไม่ตกหล่น ตัวเล่มเองถูงจัดพิมพ์ได้แข็งแรง กระดาษที่ใช้ก็ดีมาก(เล่มนี้ผม”ดอง”นานมากกว่าจะหยิบขึ้นมาอ่าน กระดาษยังไม่เปลี่ยนสีสักนิดเลย)
เมื่อมันเป็นหนังสือที่เขียนโดยคนอังกฤษ ประวัติศาสตร์ที่บอกเล่าในเล่มจึงเป็นเรื่องราวของชาวฝรั่งเศสในส่วนที่ต้องข้องเกี่ยวกับพวกแองโกล-แซกซอนเป็นส่วนใหญ่ ไล่เรียงมาตั้งแต่ยุคสมัยก่อนที่จะมีการนิยามตัวตนกันว่าใครเป็นชาวฝรั่งเศสในศตวรรษที่9 เรื่อยมาจนถึงยุคสมัยหลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่2
ตัวผมมีมุมมองต่อหนังสือเล่มนี้แยกเป็น2ส่วน ส่วนแรกเป็นเรื่องของข้อมูลทางประวัติศาสตร์ ผู้เขียนทำการบ้านมาดีมากในการหาข้อมูลเพื่อโต้ตอบเรื่องเล่าขานของชาวฝรั่งเศสทำให้ผู้อ่านอย่างเราได้เห็นมุมมองที่กว้างขวางขึ้นของหลายๆเหตุการณ์ในประวัติศาสตร์ ไม่ว่าจะเป็นเรื่องการตายของ”โจนออฟอาร์ก”นี่เป็นเพราะการรุกรานของพวกอังกฤษล้วนๆหรือการเมืองภายในฝรั่งเศสเองกันแน่? ทำไมฝรั่งเศสถึงส่งมอบเทพีเสรีภาพในอเมริกาเพื่อเฉลิมฉลองการประกาศอิสระภาพผจากอังกฤษ)? เหตุใดชาวสก็อตถึงไม่ยอมรับราชินีแมรี่ที่1 จนนำไปสู่บทสรุปแสนเศร้าของพระนางกันนะ? คือก็บอกไม่ได้เต็มปากหรอกว่ามันเป็นหนังสือประวัติศาสตร์ฝรั่งเศสที่เป็นกลางเพราะมันเจือมุมมองของชาวอังกฤษอย่างเข้มข้น แต่มันให้ภาพประวัติศาสตร์ที่มีมิติกว้างและลึกขึ้นทำให้อะไรๆที่เราเข้าใจเรื่องราวในตำนานต่างๆได้แจ่มชัดขึ้น
ส่วนที่2 เป็นเรื่องสำนวนการเขียนของผู้เขียน Stephen Clarke เป็นนักเขียนที่ถนัดการเขียนแนวเสียดสี ที่มีลีลาฉกาจหาตัวจับยาก หนำซ้ำยังรุ่มรวยอารมณ์ขัน ผมชอบการหยิบแกมหยอกของชาวอังกฤษ-ฝรั่งเศสแน่ล่ะว่ามันออกชังๆหน่อยแต่พวกเขาให้เกียรติกันและกันมากเลยนะ มันเป็นการจิก-กัดโดยไม่รุ้สึกถึงการ”เหยียด” ซึ่งทำออกมาได้น่ารักมาก น่ารักแบบที่คิดไม่ออกว่าเหล่าชาติในอาเซียนจะเขียนถึงประเทศเพื่อนบ้านได้น่ารักแบบนี้ ตัวผมอยากให้เรามีหนังสือประวัติศาสตร์ประเทศเพื่อนบ้านที่เขียนได้อารมณ์สนิทกันขนาดนี้บ้าง
ในส่วนของหนังสือฉบับแปลไทยโดยสำนักพิมพ์ Freeform นักแปลสำนวนดีมากถ่ายทอดอารมณ์ของผู้เขียนออกมาไให้สัมผัสได้ไม่ตกหล่น ตัวเล่มเองถูงจัดพิมพ์ได้แข็งแรง กระดาษที่ใช้ก็ดีมาก(เล่มนี้ผม”ดอง”นานมากกว่าจะหยิบขึ้นมาอ่าน กระดาษยังไม่เปลี่ยนสีสักนิดเลย)
Read
February 3, 2017O, delikatnie rzecz ujmując, skomplikowanych stosunkach pomiędzy dwoma wielkimi narodami, z humorem (często wyjątkowo czarnym!), swadą i skrupulatnością. Stephen Clarke zabiera czytelnika w trwającą tysiąc lat podróż, w sposób niezwykle malowniczy dowodząc, iż małostkowość, krótkowzroczność, zazdrość i zwykła złośliwość, cechująca zarówno "wybitne" jednostki, jak i całe masy ludzkie zamieszkujące tereny obu państw - tak, moim zdaniem zarówno Anglii, jak i Francji obrywa się tutaj po równo - prowadzą do opłakanych skutków, kosztujących nierzadko życia setek tysięcy ludzi.
Aby nie było całkiem ponuro, Clarke meandruje nie tylko zawiłymi ścieżkami wspólnej historii Anglików i Francuzów, ale również zawzięcie trzebi, będące w powszechnym obiegu, mity i kłamstewka dotyczące francuskich dokonań na płaszczyźnie kulinarnej, muzycznej, literackiej i filmowej.
Bardzo zabawna i pouczająca książka, która pozwoli Wam zrozumieć skomplikowane relacje polityczne i kulturowe pomiędzy dwoma państwami, jak również - przez pryzmat omówionego tu "tysiąclecia" - pomoże zyskać lepszy ogląd na najświeższe wydarzenia zachodzące w Wielkiej Brytanii i na kontynencie. Polecam!
Aby nie było całkiem ponuro, Clarke meandruje nie tylko zawiłymi ścieżkami wspólnej historii Anglików i Francuzów, ale również zawzięcie trzebi, będące w powszechnym obiegu, mity i kłamstewka dotyczące francuskich dokonań na płaszczyźnie kulinarnej, muzycznej, literackiej i filmowej.
Bardzo zabawna i pouczająca książka, która pozwoli Wam zrozumieć skomplikowane relacje polityczne i kulturowe pomiędzy dwoma państwami, jak również - przez pryzmat omówionego tu "tysiąclecia" - pomoże zyskać lepszy ogląd na najświeższe wydarzenia zachodzące w Wielkiej Brytanii i na kontynencie. Polecam!
April 16, 2018
This book took me a while to finish because, like I do with nonfiction, I dipped in and out of it. While I did know about some periods of the 1000 years it was covering, I wasn't an expert enough to critique the information it provided in the book so I can't comment on the accuracy. However, I liked how the book was split into sections and the actual information was very readable as well.
However, I found the first half of the book far more interesting than the second half. Maybe it was because that was where my interest lay more in the earlier periods of history but I found the last part of the book with De Gaulle fairly uninteresting, though I didn't know about any of it really.
4 stars!
However, I found the first half of the book far more interesting than the second half. Maybe it was because that was where my interest lay more in the earlier periods of history but I found the last part of the book with De Gaulle fairly uninteresting, though I didn't know about any of it really.
4 stars!
November 19, 2011
I was entirely charmed by Stephen Clarke's account of French English relations. I read historical books compulsively, for my own writing and for pleasure. A writer who manages to add to my sense of history, give me new angles, new details to consider is a rare find. Clarke likes the odd detail, teh forgotten twist in old stories. He entertains and he teaches...and straightens up a few myths in between.
May 17, 2013
I enjoyed this very much. If we could give .5 awards, I'd have given it a 3.5. It's definitely history-light, but Clarke has a nice way with tale-telling and makes the history interesting and accessible. The book covers the disputes and arguments between les Anglais and the French, from William the Conqueror to present day. I enjoyed the humour and also the facts. Easy to read and it flowed very nicely and it taught me something. All good.
January 17, 2018
This was absolutely hilarious, I couldn’t stop laughing at parts. It was written in a conversational manner and I rather liked that. It did make me question some of the facts, but I did my own research on the facts I questioned, and they were all right.
I can’t believe I let this sit on my bookcase for over five years! Though, I probably wouldn’t recommend this to a French person.
I can’t believe I let this sit on my bookcase for over five years! Though, I probably wouldn’t recommend this to a French person.
August 19, 2022
So much of this is twisted to fit Clarke’s anti-french agenda. As a half-french person living in London (from Normandy like William the Conqueror actually, so maybe I shouldn’t call myself french either!) I do not appreciate the efforts made to drive a harder wedge between french and english people.
February 1, 2020
3.5 stars
What I Loved:
A laugh out loud hilarious and perceptive look at the history of England and France and their relationship for the past one thousand years. This is no dry history book, but a humorous recounting with lots of pithy statements and witty asides. I loved the humorous approach because it was not politically correct and because humor often allows you to get closer to the truth and reality of a thing.
What I Didn't Love:
The humorous aspect of the book also gave it a very irreverent tone, which didn't bother me except that it too often derailed in salacious gossipy remarks that were often NOT entirely true or based in fact. And, of course, there's nothing humorous about goodness or kindness or noble deeds, so you will finish the book thinking there hasn't been a single moment of true courage or goodness or self sacrifice in a thousand years of history.
I enjoyed it and laughed out loud fairly frequently, but it's definitely more of a comedy routine than a true historical resource.
What I Loved:
A laugh out loud hilarious and perceptive look at the history of England and France and their relationship for the past one thousand years. This is no dry history book, but a humorous recounting with lots of pithy statements and witty asides. I loved the humorous approach because it was not politically correct and because humor often allows you to get closer to the truth and reality of a thing.
What I Didn't Love:
The humorous aspect of the book also gave it a very irreverent tone, which didn't bother me except that it too often derailed in salacious gossipy remarks that were often NOT entirely true or based in fact. And, of course, there's nothing humorous about goodness or kindness or noble deeds, so you will finish the book thinking there hasn't been a single moment of true courage or goodness or self sacrifice in a thousand years of history.
I enjoyed it and laughed out loud fairly frequently, but it's definitely more of a comedy routine than a true historical resource.
February 7, 2022
History is often looked upon as "boring" or "too-serious" and this is true in many cases, but as deep as humor has roots inside the humanity, a funny author can makes wonders.
This book, as its name suggests, is a take on the history between England and France for the last ten centuries or so. Also suggesting from the title, this is no impartial take. Many historians take pride in claiming their unbiasesty but Clarke had no intentions to do so.
Granted, this is more of a fun book than a history reference, and the writer isn't outright hostile to the French and simply retold the facts; but in a biased manner.
A bonus is that the humor is on point most of the times which by itself this saves the book in many cases.
On hindsight, this is a really good book to get yourself familiar with the history of these two countries, even if you're not from either of them. It is funny and interesting enough to grab your attention and not letting it go.
Although, this is not a complete recount of the events and more so, a quick and light skim over the history.
This book, as its name suggests, is a take on the history between England and France for the last ten centuries or so. Also suggesting from the title, this is no impartial take. Many historians take pride in claiming their unbiasesty but Clarke had no intentions to do so.
Granted, this is more of a fun book than a history reference, and the writer isn't outright hostile to the French and simply retold the facts; but in a biased manner.
A bonus is that the humor is on point most of the times which by itself this saves the book in many cases.
On hindsight, this is a really good book to get yourself familiar with the history of these two countries, even if you're not from either of them. It is funny and interesting enough to grab your attention and not letting it go.
Although, this is not a complete recount of the events and more so, a quick and light skim over the history.
January 3, 2022
I started this last year, forgot about it and then picked it up again. It really is a hilarious book but also very well researched. It delves into the history between the British and French and why they have been at each others throats for years. It also adds Americans and Canadians into the mix. I was fascinated to learn that many things that we believe are French are actually not. There was some history that I knew but interesting facts were added and history that I was unaware of. There is an obvious British slant but Clarke gives credit to the French when credit is due.
April 6, 2025
Here’s to 1000 more!
December 1, 2024
Dosyć fajnym językiem napisana, ale nie jestem aż tak wielką fanką historii.
March 31, 2016
I had to stop reading this. It is the most intellectually dishonest book I've read in a long time. I'm all for a bit of humour in retelling history but this reads like a piece of propaganda.
The back cover claims 'Ten centuries' worth of French historical "facts" bite the dust as Stephen Clarke looks at what has really been going on since 1066'. This is plain wrong. The author doesn't seem to realise that he is trying to 'debunk' is simply not presented as fact in France. Such paragraphs as this one are completely and ridiculously incorrect:
'[The French] don't really remember Crécy or Trafalgar; they think that Napoleon's failure to get to Moscow was a strategic withdrawal; and they don't regard the Nazi Occupation as a defeat - it was more of a waiting period until Charles de Gaulle was ready to come back and seal victory'
Absolutely everything in this paragraph is wrong (having been through 17 years of French education, I am well-placed to know that) and it epitomises the overall style of this book: full of unsubstantiated sweeping statements, hiding behind a pseudo-humorous façade so as to render them immune to criticism, and frankly quite insulting to French people's intelligence and historical knowledge.
It's a shame, because a history book on French-English relations could be extremely interesting, but Clarke has an agenda and twists the facts continuously to adapt them to it. Some of his interpretations are so far-fetched that it is incredible that they actually got printed. Seeing history through neon-pink-tinted glasses, and with very little historical rigour, everything seems to benefit England 'in the end' (sometimes 200 years after a specific event!) while the French are constantly (and some time in a contradictory way) presented as cowardly, snobbish, delusional, pretentious, mildly idiotic and most of all bullied by the English.
Should I also mention that most of the 'jokes' rest on sexist, racist and classist assumptions which I thought had ceased to be funny forty years ago?
This is not a work of popular history and it shouldn't be taken as such - it is a reinterpretation of historical events in favour of England, and quite an unsubtle one at that. I worry that people who read this will think that Clarke's word is gospel. It absolutely isn't - please treat this with extreme scepticism and use your critical judgement.
The back cover claims 'Ten centuries' worth of French historical "facts" bite the dust as Stephen Clarke looks at what has really been going on since 1066'. This is plain wrong. The author doesn't seem to realise that he is trying to 'debunk' is simply not presented as fact in France. Such paragraphs as this one are completely and ridiculously incorrect:
'[The French] don't really remember Crécy or Trafalgar; they think that Napoleon's failure to get to Moscow was a strategic withdrawal; and they don't regard the Nazi Occupation as a defeat - it was more of a waiting period until Charles de Gaulle was ready to come back and seal victory'
Absolutely everything in this paragraph is wrong (having been through 17 years of French education, I am well-placed to know that) and it epitomises the overall style of this book: full of unsubstantiated sweeping statements, hiding behind a pseudo-humorous façade so as to render them immune to criticism, and frankly quite insulting to French people's intelligence and historical knowledge.
It's a shame, because a history book on French-English relations could be extremely interesting, but Clarke has an agenda and twists the facts continuously to adapt them to it. Some of his interpretations are so far-fetched that it is incredible that they actually got printed. Seeing history through neon-pink-tinted glasses, and with very little historical rigour, everything seems to benefit England 'in the end' (sometimes 200 years after a specific event!) while the French are constantly (and some time in a contradictory way) presented as cowardly, snobbish, delusional, pretentious, mildly idiotic and most of all bullied by the English.
Should I also mention that most of the 'jokes' rest on sexist, racist and classist assumptions which I thought had ceased to be funny forty years ago?
This is not a work of popular history and it shouldn't be taken as such - it is a reinterpretation of historical events in favour of England, and quite an unsubtle one at that. I worry that people who read this will think that Clarke's word is gospel. It absolutely isn't - please treat this with extreme scepticism and use your critical judgement.
September 6, 2020
This millennial look at the history of Britain and France is told with wry, sometimes childishly irritating, and rarely laugh-inducing humour. It’s pretty comprehensive, coming in at just under 650 pages, and it’s not all as good as the rest of it.
Beginning with William the Conqueror (not French) and ending with Nicolas Sarkozy (French), Clarke covers a fair bit of ground including food, battles, trade, battles, Canada, battles, wine, battles, Voltaire, battles, the French Revolution and battles. Oh, and there are about seven chapters dedicated to Napoleon.
You learn a lot about the impact of France on the world. In many cases, as the book has a clear anti-French bias (albeit tongue-in-cheek apparently) Clarke takes pains to point out where our common understanding of the influence of France on history is misplaced.
Although history is the opinion of whoever decides to interpret certain selected facts a certain way, it’s helpful to know that there are alternative ways to interpret facts so that the French don’t get the glory for many things they think they’re responsible for. As a Brit, that’s very satisfying.
Despite it being a whimsical ride for the most part, it did drag from time to time, and I was glad to get it over with. There are far too many dad jokes in here for me. He’s a writer, not a comedian.
I can see this being something of a good read on holiday or on the plane. Something to pick up and put down. It’s interesting enough. But Clarke is no Bryson, and I couldn’t help but wish our USAnian friend could have advised him.
Beginning with William the Conqueror (not French) and ending with Nicolas Sarkozy (French), Clarke covers a fair bit of ground including food, battles, trade, battles, Canada, battles, wine, battles, Voltaire, battles, the French Revolution and battles. Oh, and there are about seven chapters dedicated to Napoleon.
You learn a lot about the impact of France on the world. In many cases, as the book has a clear anti-French bias (albeit tongue-in-cheek apparently) Clarke takes pains to point out where our common understanding of the influence of France on history is misplaced.
Although history is the opinion of whoever decides to interpret certain selected facts a certain way, it’s helpful to know that there are alternative ways to interpret facts so that the French don’t get the glory for many things they think they’re responsible for. As a Brit, that’s very satisfying.
Despite it being a whimsical ride for the most part, it did drag from time to time, and I was glad to get it over with. There are far too many dad jokes in here for me. He’s a writer, not a comedian.
I can see this being something of a good read on holiday or on the plane. Something to pick up and put down. It’s interesting enough. But Clarke is no Bryson, and I couldn’t help but wish our USAnian friend could have advised him.
March 24, 2016
A 'deliciously' entertaining read from start to finish - probably the most entertaining history book I've ever read (and I do enjoy a bit of history). Having read Stephen Clarke's 'A Year In The Merde' before this, my experience of reading this one was a quite welcome and pleasant subversion of my expectations - and I do have a penchant for the latter as well.
The book itself starts off in a seemingly patriotic tone, but as you carry on reading, laughing hysterically as you go along, Clarke's fondness for France and French culture comes across rather clearly (he even outright admits it at one point in the book); consequently, the book gradually, but surely, gains a more 'balanced' tone, although "le French-bashing" is still prevalent of course. Having said that, Clarke is very blunt in his condemning of certain British atrocities mentioned during his rather thorough journey through Anglo-French history, as well as being quick to point out some specific flaws manifested by the Brits. It's small tidbits such as these that ensure the book doesn't come across as lopsided.
It's also very informative, although not necessarily in the manner of a traditional history book, with several rather obscure historical events being focused upon. It also brings into question the origin of such French staples as the 'croissant' and 'champagne'. Not surprisingly, these aspects are key in establishing the book's unique charm - un très bon read, overall!
The book itself starts off in a seemingly patriotic tone, but as you carry on reading, laughing hysterically as you go along, Clarke's fondness for France and French culture comes across rather clearly (he even outright admits it at one point in the book); consequently, the book gradually, but surely, gains a more 'balanced' tone, although "le French-bashing" is still prevalent of course. Having said that, Clarke is very blunt in his condemning of certain British atrocities mentioned during his rather thorough journey through Anglo-French history, as well as being quick to point out some specific flaws manifested by the Brits. It's small tidbits such as these that ensure the book doesn't come across as lopsided.
It's also very informative, although not necessarily in the manner of a traditional history book, with several rather obscure historical events being focused upon. It also brings into question the origin of such French staples as the 'croissant' and 'champagne'. Not surprisingly, these aspects are key in establishing the book's unique charm - un très bon read, overall!
March 22, 2013
I love this book! This is how history should be passed on - the book is full of fascinating historical facts all built round the "special" relationship we have with our neighbours across the channel. It documents the often fractious history between France and England, throwing up a lot of information about the ripple effect this relationship has had on world events. The section on early American history is particularly fascinating.
For all the verbal attacks on the French and their history, author Stephen Clarke obviously holds the country and its people in high regard. It's to be hoped he's written a similar book from a French perspective, given that he now lives and works in Paris!
This book should be required reading for anyone who wants a better understanding of the history that exists between England and France - and essential for anyone who collects fascinating trivia. I always knew that the Norman's weren't French but it was interesting to discover that Napoleon was,technically,Italian and that baguettes and croissants originated in Austria!
Read this book - you wont be disappointed.
For all the verbal attacks on the French and their history, author Stephen Clarke obviously holds the country and its people in high regard. It's to be hoped he's written a similar book from a French perspective, given that he now lives and works in Paris!
This book should be required reading for anyone who wants a better understanding of the history that exists between England and France - and essential for anyone who collects fascinating trivia. I always knew that the Norman's weren't French but it was interesting to discover that Napoleon was,technically,Italian and that baguettes and croissants originated in Austria!
Read this book - you wont be disappointed.
June 18, 2017
Last year I asked my f-list to recommend to me their favorite "new" book that they had read in the past year (by "new" I mean "new to them"). I don't remember who recommended me this one, but I'd thank them if I did!
This was a humorous and yet seriously edifying romp through Anglo-Gallic relations from the time of the conquest until a few years ago. Much of the early stuff I already knew (perils of being a medievalist), but the 17th C chapters and later I found remarkably educational, in part because I realised that I knew a lot of facts from this period but almost none of the whys. Clarke manages to explain the whys and wherefores in a motivating fashion, AND blame everything on the French/English as necessary in order to obtain maximum annoyance.
I found the bits about the channel tunnel and entering the EU particularly interesting, because those are bits that I really knew very little about and -- given Brexit -- are quite timely.
Not sure I'd ever have cause to re-read it, hence not 5 stars, but I'd definitely recommend it to friends, hence not 3 stars.
This was a humorous and yet seriously edifying romp through Anglo-Gallic relations from the time of the conquest until a few years ago. Much of the early stuff I already knew (perils of being a medievalist), but the 17th C chapters and later I found remarkably educational, in part because I realised that I knew a lot of facts from this period but almost none of the whys. Clarke manages to explain the whys and wherefores in a motivating fashion, AND blame everything on the French/English as necessary in order to obtain maximum annoyance.
I found the bits about the channel tunnel and entering the EU particularly interesting, because those are bits that I really knew very little about and -- given Brexit -- are quite timely.
Not sure I'd ever have cause to re-read it, hence not 5 stars, but I'd definitely recommend it to friends, hence not 3 stars.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 479 reviews