As you may recall, the World History Project is my pathetic attempt to make sense of the world via history, literature, movies and even music.
It started out sometime in the 1980s as a way to better understand literature by reading it chronologically. Figuring that reading the “great novels” was the way to go, I started out with Don Quixote, which was written around 1600.
Over the next fifteen years or so I made it up to the late 1800s and was reading Samuel Butler’s The Way of all Flesh on 9/11, at which point I decided I needed to know more about the world - and what led us to that moment - than I did.
So I decided to start over - this time including history - and started from around 3000 BC. I read the Bible and histories of Asia, Greece, the Middle East, Rome, and Europe. I threw in a few philosophy and art books for good measure.
Along with way, I got the idea that, since I’m enough of a music nerd to occasionally “recycle” my records, why not do it along with the WHP? It’s just like me to take an already unwieldy idea and make it more so.
Adding music would have absolutely no significance until I got to around 800 AD, when I played Chant, which is the earliest music I have.
It’s now seventeen years since “The Great Reset”. So where am I?
Well - as is usually the case with me - it’s complicated.
Don’t Know Much About History!:
Once I included history I had to figure out some practical things, like when different history books covered overlapping time periods, how should I read them? One at a time, from beginning to end, no matter how far into the future it goes, or switch from one to the other when I got to a year that is picked up by another book? I ended up going with a version of the latter.
An extreme version of this would mean jumping from one book to another as soon as I got up to a date that other book covers. Since some books are very general and others very specific (A People's History of the World vs. The Day Kennedy was Shot, say), this might mean stopping in mid-paragraph in the more general book, to move on to and read another book from start to finish before finishing that paragraph in the first book, maybe months later.
This can get really silly really fast and end up defeating the whole purpose of WHP, which was to let one book strengthen my understanding of another by adding context. So I’ve made some compromises.
I’ll start with the more general book, and then get gradually more specific. When I’m reading the general book and get to a point covered by a more specific book, I’ll at least read to the end of the chapter or section, before making the jump.
Another issue has to do with dealing with different branches of history, (i.e., American vs. European vs. Middle Eastern, etc). Sometimes they intersect and sometimes they don’t. When they don’t seem to, I’ll stick with one branch through the more hectic periods - say, the American Revolution - and then, once things calm down, move onto another branch, like the French Revolution. And yes, I know they do intersect but I had to draw the line somewhere.
Where does this leave me?
America:
I finished Robert Remini’s The Jackson Era which puts me at about 1837.
I’m partly through Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, Alistair Cooke’s America, Alex Haley’s Roots and Lawrence Levine’s Black Culture and Consciousness.
I’m on pause, catching up with European history before I delve into the American Civil War.
The Middle East:
This is getting short shrift for now, with me only reading Albert Hourani’s A History of the Arab Peoples and Paul Johnston’s A History of the Jews, with me resting at the early 1800s.
Europe:
I’ve been relying on several of my college textbooks to get the overview.
I then doubled back to Europe and England and covered the French Revolution. I just finished the fantasy fiction (and slightly disappointing) Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke, and working on The Charterhouse of Parma by Stendahl, which is a lot better (i.e., funnier) than The Red and the Black. I'm more or less in 1820.
Ireland:
I was just getting some traction in Europe when - inspired by a trip to Ireland - I decided I had been neglecting my heritage. I decided to learn more about its history, when meant going all the way back to about 500BC. I’m up to when St Patrick arrives, which is around 432. And no, there wasn’t a parade.
My plan was to catch up to 1800 or so and then get back to Europe, when my neighbor threw out a book about the Catholic popes. Then I started hearing good things about The Memoirs of Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar, which is now my current read, circa 130 AD.
I appear to be going in the wrong direction.
Art:
I’ve been getting by with Janson’s History of Art and Michael Bird's 100 Ideas That Changed Art. I’m up to the early 1800s.
Music:
As ridiculous as this all sounds, my going backward in time has given me some breathing room to catch up on some classical music I’d previously missed.
The late 18th century was a pretty hectic time history-wise as evidenced above. On top of those convulsive events, there were several musical geniuses emerging. I’ve already covered Mozart in my singularly uninformative way, and will be getting to Beethoven soon.
At the moment I’m enjoying Joseph Haydn.
Moe and Larry, I mean, Mozart and Beethoven called him the grand old man. And anyone who can crank out over a hundred symphonies deserves respect.
But as much at Mozart and Beethoven liked him, he’s just not quite on their level. But that’s like saying Big Star wasn’t quite the Beatles. So what?
If Bach is, say Chuck Berry, and Mozart is the Beatles, then Haydn is probably Elton John, just on output alone. I mean, look at the Symphony numbers here! Over a hundred? That’s pretty impressive. Even if they sucked, who would go to all that trouble?
And let’s not get into whether or not anyone, including the musicians - and Haydn - can really tell Symphony number 63 from 36. Does the violinist sit there playing thinking hmmm, this sounds an awful lot like the last one to me...
And it doesn’t suck. It’s stately and grand. Not exciting grand, or beautiful grand, just well, grand-grand. Like Bach, it’s neither obnoxious nor forbidding. I can’t say I love it, but it’s hard to dislike it. Is that also an Elton John parallel?
So there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this music. I guarantee if you put it on, you’ll kind of like it. It’s almost fun-nish, but you will feel like you should be dressing a little better. (Not and EJ parallel.)
So put it on for company to show you’re classy.
B+
Once I’m done with Hadyn, I’ll be at about 1794, music-wise. Then I can jump to Beethoven, who I’m beginning to think, based on temperment, was the Phil Spector of his era.
So, on Hadrian! On Pope Pius! On St. Pat! I’ve got to catch up to be only 200 years behind!
No comments:
Post a Comment