book report
Asprey, Robert. The Panther's Feast. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1959
This was such a weird book. I can't really recommend it exactly, but I feel the need to talk about it.
So over the past ten months or so, I've read somewhere in the area of 2000 pages of Asprey's writing. I'm not even exagerating, this is the guy that wrote the epic history of guerrilla warfare (~1200 pages), a biography of Frederick the Great of Prussia (~700 pages), and a biography of Napoleon (that I'm not finished with, am about 200 pages in). Compared to that, The Panther's Feast, at a measly ~300 pages is beach reading. It's also Asprey's first book, and unfortunately, it shows.
That said, even at his worst, and this would be why I've waded through seas of military history that if you'd asked me two years ago I wouldn't have said would be my cup of tea, his writing is extremely engaging,
Also, I know his scholarship got better. That issue right there was the major problem I had with the book. The Panther's Feast is the story of Alfred Redl, who was a highly placed officer in Austria-Hungary's intelligence bureau in the years leading up to WWI. He was also gay and prone to living above his means, two things that were exploited by the Russians in order to blackmail and turn him into a double agent. Redl was quite successful in both of his jobs for several years before finally getting sloppy and getting caught in 1913. He was allowed to commit suicide rather than stand trial, although in the end attempt by the military to keep the scandal covered up were unsuccessful.
So far, so good, right? It sounded interesting, and for the most part it was. To his credit, Asprey tried really really hard to get into the head of Redl, to see things from his point of view. Unfortunately, the way he did that was by making up dialogue, or inventing scenes that in real life probably took the form of reports or written corespondents, or were just Asprey's attempts to 'set the mood'. There were even points where the characters* were resorting to "As you know, Bob" lines in order to get the information across to the reader. That's bad enough in fiction, in something that's supposed to be non-fiction it was a bit of a wall-banger.
And also, oh god, there were sex scenes. Hilariously euphemism swathed sex scenes. WHY.
There was a lot of good information to be gleaned, mostly more general things about Austria and central Europe around the turn of the 20th century, but it had to be weeded out. This is not a book that can be swallowed whole and unthinking.
The thing that Asprey flat out stated was his intent with the book that I don't think he quite managed, was to figure out Redl as a person. I think Asprey may have decided on a combination of a desire to escape an impoverished upbringing, misogyny**, with a streak of sociopathy. Weirdly, and I suppose given when the book was written I should be greatful for this, Asprey didn't give a lot of commentary on homosexuality, other than to point out the various ways it left Redl open to blackmail and encouraged big spending which encouraged him to seek out extra income.
One of the most interesting parts of the entire book is at the end, after Redl is dead and the government is trying desperately to come up with an explanation for how the hell did such a high-level official get away with spying for foreign powers for so long without anyone noticing? And then he was allowed to commit suicide? As a Catholic?? There's this fascinating bit where an effort was made to research Redl's family tree to prove that he was really Jewish--no mortal sin of suicide, massive anti-semitic sentiment would have provided an easy explanation to the general public. He wasn't.
So in short, an interesting bit of history that I'm glad I'm now aware of, but by far the worst book I've read by Asprey. Do not judge his writing by this.
*In the afterward Asprey states that he changed names when it would be embarrassing to people still alive, however, in the text he doesn't in any way indicate when he did this.:headdesk: There's an edition that was printed in 1986, I'm so tempted to buy a copy (the book I read is the library's) to see if it's been revised.
**This is one of the most confusing parts of the whole book. At times it reads like Asprey's trying to push the "women as civilizing force" argument, at times like he's blaming Redl's troubles on not liking them enough, or that he thinks Redl blamed his troubles on women in general. It's problematic to say the least, and not a knot I can untangle on one read, without other sources.
This was such a weird book. I can't really recommend it exactly, but I feel the need to talk about it.
So over the past ten months or so, I've read somewhere in the area of 2000 pages of Asprey's writing. I'm not even exagerating, this is the guy that wrote the epic history of guerrilla warfare (~1200 pages), a biography of Frederick the Great of Prussia (~700 pages), and a biography of Napoleon (that I'm not finished with, am about 200 pages in). Compared to that, The Panther's Feast, at a measly ~300 pages is beach reading. It's also Asprey's first book, and unfortunately, it shows.
That said, even at his worst, and this would be why I've waded through seas of military history that if you'd asked me two years ago I wouldn't have said would be my cup of tea, his writing is extremely engaging,
Also, I know his scholarship got better. That issue right there was the major problem I had with the book. The Panther's Feast is the story of Alfred Redl, who was a highly placed officer in Austria-Hungary's intelligence bureau in the years leading up to WWI. He was also gay and prone to living above his means, two things that were exploited by the Russians in order to blackmail and turn him into a double agent. Redl was quite successful in both of his jobs for several years before finally getting sloppy and getting caught in 1913. He was allowed to commit suicide rather than stand trial, although in the end attempt by the military to keep the scandal covered up were unsuccessful.
So far, so good, right? It sounded interesting, and for the most part it was. To his credit, Asprey tried really really hard to get into the head of Redl, to see things from his point of view. Unfortunately, the way he did that was by making up dialogue, or inventing scenes that in real life probably took the form of reports or written corespondents, or were just Asprey's attempts to 'set the mood'. There were even points where the characters* were resorting to "As you know, Bob" lines in order to get the information across to the reader. That's bad enough in fiction, in something that's supposed to be non-fiction it was a bit of a wall-banger.
And also, oh god, there were sex scenes. Hilariously euphemism swathed sex scenes. WHY.
There was a lot of good information to be gleaned, mostly more general things about Austria and central Europe around the turn of the 20th century, but it had to be weeded out. This is not a book that can be swallowed whole and unthinking.
The thing that Asprey flat out stated was his intent with the book that I don't think he quite managed, was to figure out Redl as a person. I think Asprey may have decided on a combination of a desire to escape an impoverished upbringing, misogyny**, with a streak of sociopathy. Weirdly, and I suppose given when the book was written I should be greatful for this, Asprey didn't give a lot of commentary on homosexuality, other than to point out the various ways it left Redl open to blackmail and encouraged big spending which encouraged him to seek out extra income.
One of the most interesting parts of the entire book is at the end, after Redl is dead and the government is trying desperately to come up with an explanation for how the hell did such a high-level official get away with spying for foreign powers for so long without anyone noticing? And then he was allowed to commit suicide? As a Catholic?? There's this fascinating bit where an effort was made to research Redl's family tree to prove that he was really Jewish--no mortal sin of suicide, massive anti-semitic sentiment would have provided an easy explanation to the general public. He wasn't.
So in short, an interesting bit of history that I'm glad I'm now aware of, but by far the worst book I've read by Asprey. Do not judge his writing by this.
*In the afterward Asprey states that he changed names when it would be embarrassing to people still alive, however, in the text he doesn't in any way indicate when he did this.:headdesk: There's an edition that was printed in 1986, I'm so tempted to buy a copy (the book I read is the library's) to see if it's been revised.
**This is one of the most confusing parts of the whole book. At times it reads like Asprey's trying to push the "women as civilizing force" argument, at times like he's blaming Redl's troubles on not liking them enough, or that he thinks Redl blamed his troubles on women in general. It's problematic to say the least, and not a knot I can untangle on one read, without other sources.