Reviews

Having lain low since reference 1, Napoléon Ier has surfaced again in a surprising way.

In the March 24th edition of the NYRB, Steven Englund reviews three new biographies of Napoleon: one written by a military historian, one by an Oxford don and one by a Frenchman. Now what most reviewers these days would do is to write an essay about Napoleon in the way of the chap noticed at reference 2, an essay which, for all I know about it, might easily have been lifted from wikipedia and given a wash & brush up. Tack a mention of the ostensible subject of the essay in somewhere along the way for decencies sake. Such an essay might well be interesting, which is why they get away with it, but it would not be a review. While, and this is the surprising bit, Englund actually takes each of these three books in turn and tells us something about each one. Something about the author, his approach, his strengths and weaknesses, and so on. Plus a bit of compare and contrast. Proper book review stuff.

So at the end of the article we are in a reasonable position to know which, if any of these books is going to be of interest. Whether to reach for the amazon button or not.

I wonder if there is any relevance in the fact that Englund's wikipedia entry is French rather than English, reflecting the fact that he is an American living in Paris and an expert on Napoleon in his own right. Do the French and the crypto-French do reviews in some special French way? See reference 3.

PS: will the reviews spark correspondence from the authors in a forthcoming issue?

Reference 1: http://psmv2.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/napoleons-new-years-party.html.

Reference 2: http://psmv3.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/migration.html.

Reference 3: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Englund.