I am reading the most frustrating thing at the moment. My friend, Naomi, thrust a book at me the other day and told me I really should read it because it was heaps cool; this guy looks at history and examines why and how people commited violent crimes, especially murders.
I open this two-inch-thick tome and the guy is actually taking everything Suetonius says (in his Twelve Ceasars) at face value. No mention of gossip-mongering, no mention of the Ancient Roman tendency to treat history as entertainment, certainly no mention of the fact that the text was essentially propoganda aimed at devaluing the emperor (and, with any luck, deposing Domitian, who was emperor at the time, if I recall correctly.) No. Absolutely everything Suetonius says is completely true. For fuck's sake, if nothing else, what has the guy been doing for the last fifty years? Wandering around with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears? And how about actually doing some actual historical research? Rather than making things up as one goes along and editing out anything that doesn't fit into one's argument.
And while I'm on the topic of his argument, the guy doesn't seem to be able construct a coherent thesis to save his life. One minute he's making a sweeping statement about how there is no way anyone should consider any of the Julio-Claudian emperors to be sadistic. Five pages later he states (with no sign of shame) that Nero was clearly a sadist. And it's not as if this is the only place he does it. He seems incapable of making a point without stating something directly contradictory a few pages later. Plus the chapter on Jack the Ripper is apparently completely gratuitous, as it doesn't seem at all connected with any of his theories. And sweeping statements much?
And the really painful thing is that it is kind of... mesmerising. I can't put the damn thing down: I have to keep on reading, just to see how much worse it gets.
Please, someone, morphine. Or a sharp stick.
I open this two-inch-thick tome and the guy is actually taking everything Suetonius says (in his Twelve Ceasars) at face value. No mention of gossip-mongering, no mention of the Ancient Roman tendency to treat history as entertainment, certainly no mention of the fact that the text was essentially propoganda aimed at devaluing the emperor (and, with any luck, deposing Domitian, who was emperor at the time, if I recall correctly.) No. Absolutely everything Suetonius says is completely true. For fuck's sake, if nothing else, what has the guy been doing for the last fifty years? Wandering around with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears? And how about actually doing some actual historical research? Rather than making things up as one goes along and editing out anything that doesn't fit into one's argument.
And while I'm on the topic of his argument, the guy doesn't seem to be able construct a coherent thesis to save his life. One minute he's making a sweeping statement about how there is no way anyone should consider any of the Julio-Claudian emperors to be sadistic. Five pages later he states (with no sign of shame) that Nero was clearly a sadist. And it's not as if this is the only place he does it. He seems incapable of making a point without stating something directly contradictory a few pages later. Plus the chapter on Jack the Ripper is apparently completely gratuitous, as it doesn't seem at all connected with any of his theories. And sweeping statements much?
And the really painful thing is that it is kind of... mesmerising. I can't put the damn thing down: I have to keep on reading, just to see how much worse it gets.
Please, someone, morphine. Or a sharp stick.
3 comments:
I'm sorry you're not liking it.
In Wilson's defence, he's a criminal psychologist, not an historian, so the stuff about propaganda would have been a counterproductive space-waster in that particular chapter.
He has to assume a position- and he's assuming Suetonius is telling the truth, for arguments sake. You could write a book on its own in trying to decipher the veracity of Suetonius' claims :p
I didn't get that he said Nero was a sadist- from what I understand of what he wrote, Nero got high on power and acted like The Ultimate Brat, doing whatever he wanted because nobody would stop him- if he'd been a normal citizen under the law, he'd never have become, say, a serial killer.
Love ya,
Naomi
Yeah, I get that. I'm just disappointed all round: his theory is less than coherent. It just seems like he either can't decide what side he's coming down on, or he can't remember. Also, he has chosen to use history as a medium for expressing his argument and thus, essentially fails because he gets the history wrong. Half of the criminal psycholgy stuff is dime-store psycho-babble anyway. I guess the reason it's really bugging me is that it means I can't trust him on the things I don't know about.
He says Nero is sadist after he's finished talking about Vlad Trepes and Ivan Strozky, though he also describes them all in terms of coddled children who were then suddenly restrained, a definition that works much better for Nero than the others who lost their parents in one way or another when they were very young.
sadly a lot of arguments tend to be based on opinon and not research or fact these days. you could write a rebuttal. that might take time though. so grrring at the books could help.
Jess
Post a Comment