Great-Uncle Harry

The church at Linton, where Harry Palin’s father served as vicar; ANZAC Cove at Gallipoli; soldiers going over the top at the Somme

This week was another week spent sick, with a sick wife and two sick kids, which was a challenge but also meant a bit more time to read than has been the case lately. Among the most pleasurable books I finished—one of the most enjoyable and moving reads in quite a while—was Great-Uncle Harry, a recently published biography by Monty Python’s Michael Palin.

The Harry of the title is Harry Palin, whom Michael Palin never knew as anything more than a younger son of the family who was lost in the First World War, decades before he was born. An older aunt gave Palin papers and memorabilia many years ago, but it wasn’t until touring the Somme battlefields and noting Harry’s name on a memorial wall that he felt the need to learn more about Harry. This book, after years of travel, consulting the archives of English public schools, tea importers, colonial newspapers, and the British army as well as Harry’s own war diaries, is the remarkable result.

Harry was the youngest child of a bookish English country vicar and his Irish-American wife, and Michael is able, through his thorough exploration of the existing records, to piece together a picture of an amiable but directionless young man. Harry quit school and worked two abortive jobs on tea plantations in India before decamping for New Zealand, where he was working as a farmhand when war broke out in 1914. He joined up in a New Zealand unit and deployed to Egypt before fighting in the sweltering, claustrophobic campaign at Gallipoli and, finally, fatally, at the Somme in France. There he fell in September 1916, the last man killed in a small attack on a crossroads. The location of his death is quiet ploughland today. He has no grave.

That Michael Palin was able to construct even this thorough a picture of an ordinary, undistinguished, and relatively unsuccessful young man more than a century after his death is surprising. Palin draws not only on the archival records I mentioned above—including lackluster performance reviews from the tea planters he worked for—but on broader research into Harry’s context, including the memoirs, both published unpublished, of other men in Harry’s unit, like the experienced sergeant who saw and reported him killed. He was even able to track down descendants of the girl to whom Harry proposed, unsuccessfully, before his final deployment to France.

Even more strikingly, Palin consulted with Peter Jackson, whose documentary They Shall Not Grow Old is one of the finest tributes to the men of this generation. Jackson consulted his extensive and well-catalogued collection of New Zealand First World War photos to find several from Gallipoli that very likely show Harry in action. These appear in the book’s photo inserts, remarkable candids of the young man described, often at the great distance imposed by the kind of records available to Palin, in the book itself.

This level of care and research marks Great-Uncle Harry as a labor of love, and the sense of duty Palin owes to Harry is evident throughout. So too is Palin’s charity and generosity to Harry’s generation, one easily and frequently scoffed at and more and more often impugned, but presented here on its own terms and with great understanding. This is a work not only of recovered memory but of profound pietas.

But Great-Uncle Harry is not only one man’s story. Palin also provides a portrait of Harry’s entire family, paying special attention to Harry’s parents and their unusual love story, as well as Harry’s older and seemingly more respectable siblings, as well as his nieces and nephews—including Michael’s father. If there is any flaw in this well-researched, briskly and engagingly written book, it is that Harry’s parents take up too great a proportion of the story in a book about Harry. But this is a minor criticism, and by the time Harry arrives as one last, late child of this most Victorian couple, one has a clear, strong feeling for his family and the world they live in. And, as we already know Harry’s fate, a note of poignancy enters with him.

That note runs through the remainder of Palin’s book, deepening with each chapter. The result is a uniquely intimate and moving look at a man whose memory time and fate and the sheer numbers slaughtered in the war should have annihilated, but which has been rescued by a generation he never lived to know. “Harry and I,” Palin reflects in his conclusion, “are not so far apart.”

Mr Standfast

John Buchan June continues today with the third Richard Hannay novel, the conclusion to an informal trilogy concerning Hannay and the Great War. The Thirty-Nine Steps detailed Hannay’s accidental discovery of a German plot to start a war and defeat England. Greenmantle followed him across Europe and beyond as he uncovered a new German plot to foment religious upheaval in the Middle East. And this novel, Mr Standfast, traces his total commitment to the war—on both the Western Front and the home front.

Mr Standfast begins with Hannay, now Brigadier General Hannay, recalled from the trenches for a special assignment by his old spy chief Sir Walter Bullivant. Bullivant tasks Hannay with infiltrating a genteel manor house in the Cotswolds frequented by upper crust pacifists, antiwar activists, leftwing literary snobs, and, just possibly, German spies. In order to do this, Hannay must playact again. If you’ve read The Thirty-Nine Steps and Greenmantle you’ll know that this comes naturally enough to Hannay, but here he meets a serious challenge—he must pretend to be a pacifist.

Despite his revulsion at acting such a dishonorable part and his embarrassment at being perceived as a conscientious objector, Hannay successfully ingratiates himself into the community. In doing so, he meets two crucial characters: Launcelot Wake, a real conscientious objector whom Hannay suspects of treason, and Mary Lamington, a beautiful nurse whom Hannay finds himself falling in love with, and who also turns out to be his handler.

Hannay, on Bullivant’s orders as relayed by Mary, infiltrates another group of pacifists and meets Moxon Ivery, a leading voice of the British antiwar movement. He also meets an old friend, the American John S Blenkiron, who is undercover as a rabble-rousing dove. Blenkiron suspects that Ivery is the German agent they’ve been looking for, “the cleverest devil” and “the most dangerous man in all the world.” The task now is to prove it, stop him, and use his connections to feed disinformation to the Germans.

Hannay’s investigation takes him all over Britain, establishing contacts in Glasgow, pursuing his quarry to the Isle of Skye, fleeing authorities who are convinced he is a criminal, losing his pursuers in the midst of a mock battle staged for a propaganda film, and surviving a Zeppelin raid on London. It is while stalking Ivery during this raid that Ivery lets his guard down and Hannay recognizes him as the German agent who nearly killed him in The Thirty-Nine Steps. He also learns that Ivery has proposed to Mary.

From here Hannay returns to the front but keeps abreast of the situation at home as much as he is able, gathering intelligence from intercepted German newspapers and tracking clues about Ivery’s network near the front. Aided by Mary; by friends like Geordie Hamilton, his Scots batman; Sir Archie Roylance, the young pilot who had flown him out of trouble in Scotland; and by Launcelot Wake himself, who was inspired by Hannay to take a noncombatant role as a laborer on the front, Hannay uncovers more of Ivery’s activities and is enlisted by Blenkiron in a scheme to capture him.

The plan takes Hannay to Switzerland, where he is reunited with his old South African friend Peter Pienaar, now a former pilot who was shot down, severely wounded, imprisoned by the Germans, and released to neutral territory because of his disability. Peter is pleased to see Hannay but bridles at inactivity. As it turns out, that inactivity will not last long.

After the twists and reversals of the Switzerland plot, the climactic action of the novel takes place on the Western Front. Hannay, returned to regular duty and promoted to Major General, uses the intelligence gathered from disrupting Ivery’s spy ring to prepare for the massive German attacks of the spring of 1918. The German offensive tests Hannay’s division—and the entire British and French coalition—and nearly succeeds, but the Allies hold out and all of Ivery’s efforts on behalf of the Germans fail thanks not only to good intelligence but to the heroic self-sacrifice of two brave men.

Mr Standfast is difficult to summarize, and I hope you’ll read it knowing that what I’ve written above contains as few spoilers as possible, with a lot of twists and surprises concealed and a whole lot more simply left out. It is the only Buchan novel I’ve read that I would call “sprawling.” It is also the only one that I’ve struggled to finish.

After Buchan successfully scaled the thrills of The Thirty-Nine Steps up for Greenmantle I looked forward to the even more sweeping Mr Standfast, but to my surprise I found it overburdened, awkwardly paced, with a plot that was difficult to track, and with many secondary characters—such as Ivery’s henchmen—who were underdeveloped and difficult to distinguish. I found this surprising because a deft stylistic touch, distinct and memorable characters, brisk pacing no matter how complicated the plot, and a well-developed and intuitive story are all among Buchan’s greatest strengths as a writer.

I think this novel simply tries to do too much. At 128,000 words, Mr Standfast is more than three times the length of the Hannay’s first tight, spare adventure. Buchan also wrote Mr Standfast over the course of a whole year, from July 1917 to July 1918, an unusually long time for him. The finished book, as biographer Andrew Lownie notes, “shows signs of being written over a long period,” introducing and dropping characters and subplots haphazardly and being extremely episodic, though without the breakneck pace and clear goals that unified the first two Hannay novels, keeping them moving and easy to follow.

That’s what I found unsatisfying in Mr Standfast. But the novel is not without strengths.

First, though constructed of numerous small episodes that never quite cohere into a well-paced plot, many of those episodes are small masterpieces of thriller writing. Hannay’s pursuit of a spy up a rock chimney and his subsequent fight with a dark figure in a cave on the Isle of Skye, his flight from the authorities in Sir Archie’s unreliable plane, his exploration of a creepy abandoned French chateau by night, his dangerous mountaineering shortcut through the Italian Alps with Wake, his capture by the enemy at a crucial moment—all of these are exciting and expertly constructed.

Second, Mr Standfast brings back several good characters from previous Hannay adventures, most notably Peter Pienaar and Blenkiron, and introduces others like the brave and resourceful Mary. Mr Standfast also features the first appearance of another important figure from the Buchan canon: Sir Archie Roylance. Sir Archie is, by some counts, Buchan’s most commonly recurring character, and its easy to see why. From his first appearance through his roles in Huntingtower and John Macnab he is a charming, disarming, but capable figure with some unusual skills and no lack of guts. I look forward to rereading all of these in publication order someday and charting Sir Archie’s growth from novel to novel.

Third, despite its plot and pacing problems Mr Standfast is deeper and thematically richer than the standard espionage thriller. I’ll consider why in more detail below, but part of it comes down to Pilgrim’s Progress, one of Buchan’s favorite books and an anchor in the swirling plot of this novel. Hannay and Mary use Pilgrim’s Progress to pass coded messages, and Peter Pienaar reads it while recuperating in a German POW camp. Hannay sees himself as the beleaguered traveler Christian, and Peter Pienaar determines to take action against the enemy regardless of his injuries thanks to the example of Mr Standfast, who lends his name to Buchan’s story. Buchan invokes it in ways both bold and subtle, giving the action greater meaning and resonance as a result.

Last, and perhaps most importantly, this novel has the strongest pathos of any of the Hannay adventures so far. The war is not only the single unifying feature of the plot but a predominating fact looming over every action Hannay takes. The passages in which Hannay rejoins his unit at the front are among the strongest in the book, but even on the Isle of Skye or among the labor activists in Glasgow Hannay is keenly aware that enormous loss of life results from every victory of Ivery and his spies. If The Thirty-Nine Steps was the story of one man on the run and Greenmantle the story of a team working to prevent chaos in one region, Mr Standfast is continental in scope—the story of whole civilizations in a death struggle. Even when the plot meanders, the stakes are clear.

Partly this is born of Buchan’s own experiences. Though too old and ill to serve at the front line, he was active throughout the war, writing an ongoing history of the conflict that reached 24 volumes and serving at various times on the staff of General Haig, in military intelligence, and finally in the Ministry of Information, a dedicated propaganda department formed near the end of the war. And like many others in Britain, he lost people. Perhaps the greatest blow fell on April 9, 1917, the first day of the Battle of Arras, when both his brother Alastair and his old friend and publisher Tommy Nelson were killed. He began writing this novel just a few months later.

But Mr Standfast’s pathos also stems from Buchan’s deep capacity for sympathy. I’ve written about this before in the dramatically different context of colonial South Africa, but Buchan’s ability and willingness to see the other side and to understand even those he disagrees with is a strength of all of his fiction. In Mr Standfast alone Buchan gives us moving, sympathetic vignettes not only of the civilians of wartorn France, the common soldier in the trenches or recovering in hospital, and the patriotic desk jockey, but of people quite unlike himself.

“Rather than indulge in the crude jingoism with which Buchan is often tarred,” Lownie writes, “he in fact tried . . . to present various views of the conflict. . . . [D]espite his own commitment to Allied victory, his sympathies were rather wider than might be assumed.” Buchan includes what must be one of the first fictional descriptions of a man suffering shell shock—at a time when many on the home front were inclined to think of it as malingering or simple cowardice—and one of the surprise heroes of his story is the conscientious objector Launcelot Wake. Though Hannay despises the fashionable pacifists who lend aid to the enemy by undermining the war effort and deriding the British army, he recognizes and comes to respect Wake’s good-faith position. Over the course of the novel Wake demonstrates not only moral courage in an unpopular cause but physical courage as a messenger on the front. As in so many of Buchan’s stories, two dissimilar men learn from and better each other.

None of these strengths quite overcomes the disjointed plot, the uneven pacing, or the contrivances of Hannay’s espionage work, but they deepen Mr Standfast and give it an emotional power beyond what you might expect if you only know Buchan as an adventure novelist. As flawed as I found Mr Standfast, I intend to reread it. I may have missed something. And perhaps, like others among my favorite novels, it will reveal more of itself to me.

Corroboration

A few weeks ago when I reviewed the new All Quiet on the Western Front I faulted the filmmakers for thinking they could improve upon the original when the improvements came at the expense of the novel’s characters, themes, and subtlety. There’s a lot of that going around.

Yesterday The Critic had an interesting review of a new BBC miniseries adaptation of Great Expectations, an adaptation the reviewer describes as “extensive literary vandalism.” In omitting much and adding much else, prolific screenwriter Steven Knight claims he “tried to . . . imagine if Dickens was writing the story now and had the freedom to go to those darker places, what would he do? If he had been liberated to write the things that were going on that he wasn’t allowed to write about.”

The Critic’s reviewer rightly takes Knight to task for this tired excuse to “read between the lines”—which being translated is “make stuff up”—and provides a short description of the series’ departures from Dickens. But the penultimate paragraph broadens her scope from this particular bad adaptation to the current wave of them:

Unsurprisingly, the first episode of BBC’s Great Expectations has been reviewed badly. Many commentators have pointed to “wokeness” as the problem. The rot actually runs deeper: it is simply bad, and it’s bad because Steven Knight doesn’t understand Dickens. To junk Dickens’ striking dialogue, captivating plots and nuanced characters is to entirely miss the magic and meaning of the original. Knight isn’t alone in his hubris. Netflix recently took a sledgehammer to Persuasion, replacing Austen’s profound meditations on “perpetual estrangement” with lines like: “we’re worse than exes. We’re friends”. Despite its popularity, nothing incenses me quite as much as the glossy makeover Baz Luhrmann gave to The Great Gatsby. I’ve no doubt that we must brace ourselves for hundreds more of these heavy handed remakes, as director after director imagine themselves better placed to explore the human conditions than artists of old, artists whose works have endured centuries longer than any of these adaptations will. 

“Miss[ing] the magic and meaning of the original,” all in a misguided effort to be gritty. Netflix’s All Quiet fits this description quite snugly. Read The Critic’s whole review here.

A second, smaller point of corroboration of some of what I muddled through in my review came from James Holland and Al Murray’s We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast, in a “USA” episode in which historian John McManus joined them to discuss Saving Private Ryan. These three chatting about that movie was a sure way to get my attention.

At approximately 13:00, Murray makes an interesting aside about the film’s horrifying vision of Omaha Beach and the way that vision was seized upon for promotion:

Al Murray: Have you read William Goldman on um—the screenwriter William Goldman wrote about Saving Private Ryan and he wrote some very interesting stuff about it. Because when it was being promoted, all the PR was: This is the most realistic war film ever made. It’s all true. True to life in its depiction. Yes, it’s a story, but the depiction is entirely true-to-life, was the pitch. And get this—war is hell. War is horror. And Goldman kind of—who wrote A Bridge Too Far, of course—he sort of says, Well, come on, I thought we all knew that. Everyone knows war is hell, war is horror. What are you taking us for, here?

As I wrote regarding All Quiet on the Western Front, platitudes aren’t enough to sustain a movie. No need belaboring the obvious. Fortunately, Saving Private Ryan has more to offer.

A great episode. Listen to the whole thing here.

I wrote about Saving Private Ryan for its twentieth anniversary back in the early days of this blog. The film turns 25 this summer. Holland’s Normandy ‘44, a comprehensive history of Operation Overlord and the Normandy campaign, and McManus’s The Dead and Those About to Die, a study of the 1st Infantry Division at Omaha Beach—a book I would have given anything to have back when I was writing about Corporal Phillips in high school—are both excellent and well worth your while.

All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)

Paul Bäumer (Felix Kammerer) takes cover in Netflix’s All Quiet on the Western Front

Last Sunday night, as Netflix’s new German-language version of All Quiet on the Western Front was winning four Oscars, I finally got the chance to watch the film. This was thanks to a limited one-night theatrical release. I’m really grateful I got to watch it on the big screen, with high-quality theatre sound. I can’t imagine how watching this on a TV, tablet, or phone would diminish it.

I have, however, had a hard time writing a review of the film. I’ve been fiddling with this—fighting with it—since last Monday. As I wrote last fall, I have anticipated a new film adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front for more than twenty years, and as I wrote in my movie year-in-review, I had had enough of the new film spoiled for me to be anxious about just how good of an adaptation it is.

Sure enough, having seen the film I am of two minds about it. So I’ve decided to approach the film from two angles.

As a film

Considered purely as a film, this All Quiet on the Western Front is effective and technically impressive. Sunday night it quite rightly won Oscars for production design and cinematography, and I think its makeup and sound, for which it was nominated but didn’t win, and its costume design, for which it wasn’t even nominated, were award-worthy as well. The care taken over its locations, sets, costumes, and how all of these were photographed give the movie a remarkable tactile quality. Not only does the film look and sound great, it also feels real.

The lead performances are also good, especially Felix Kammerer as young Paul Bäumer and Albrecht Schuch as the gruff veteran Kat. Kammerer in particular proves extraordinarily expressive in an underwritten lead role. His boyish scarecrow frame from which his oversized woolen uniform hangs and his enormous blue eyes, which stare out disconsolately from beneath his enormous steel helmet, really sell him as a teenager in over his head, going from wide-eyed enthusiasm to shellshock. Schuch, as I had hoped, offers a Kat more true to the mentor and expert scrounger of the book than previous versions but excels most by showing the bond between himself and the younger men he takes under his wing. Bäumer and Kat’s relationship is perhaps the best thing about the movie.

The battle sequences, which I have seen praised to the heavens, are excellently staged and shot. Long gliding Steadicam shots follow the characters in mad dashes across no-man’s-land and through the trenches. A raid in which Kat and another older soldier named Tjaden—about whom more below—work their way through the French lines and stumble upon a well-stocked field kitchen is especially involving. The filmmakers also depict the fevered brutality of hand-to-hand combat with bayonets, shovels, and fists clearly and realistically.

Again, as a film, this All Quiet also has weaknesses. One of its four Oscars was for its score. I found it distracting—jarring bleats of dubstep and seemingly random snare drum hits punctuate quiet scenes, an obvious intrusion of the modern into painstakingly authentic visuals. Some of the supporting roles are not well performed, especially a German general added to the story by the filmmakers (again, more below), although this weakness has more to do with the writing than the actors. And the film’s tactility and brutality sometimes feel gratuitous, like slasher-movie squick that is only there for shock value.

This last criticism is the hardest for me to formulate, probably because it has to do with the film’s overall tone and approach to the material. It also points toward the film’s most fundamental problem. An analogy from the film itself occurs to me: in one of the film’s final moments, Bäumer, fighting a poilu with his bare hands only minutes before the armistice, has his face shoved into the muck at the bottom of a French trench and he almost smothers. The in-your-face quality of the violence—the grossness, the muck, the squirming, the goopy sound effects—is supremely unsubtle.

That lack of subtlety is my most serious criticism of this finely crafted movie. And, as I hinted above, this, its tone, and its horror movie sensibility are also indicative of its most basic fault—it is a bad adaptation of the novel.

As an adaptation

This film is not All Quiet on the Western Front. I’m not sure I’d call it an adaptation, more another World War I story very loosely using elements of the novel. I got the sense even before the film was half over that the filmmakers had approached the novel as raw material to be cut up and repurposed. I’d estimate about 20% of the book is here, mostly in isolated incidents, visuals, and individual lines of dialogue.

Whatever, right? You can’t get everything in. An adaptation has to adapt. These are all things I’ve said myself, and they’re true. The problem is the basic approach, structure, and attitude of the film, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes All Quiet on the Western Front great that informed these decisions.

That the filmmakers view the novel as raw material is clear from the fates the characters suffer. In the novel, Kropp, the smallest and sharpest of Bäumer’s classmates, is wounded with Bäumer, loses a leg, and contemplates suicide as he thinks ahead to civilian life as a cripple. Movie Kropp attempts to surrender to the French and is torched with a flamethrower, thrashing in agony in the omnipresent mud as Bäumer watches. Tjaden, a lanky chowhound with a special hatred for their drill instructor (Corporal Himmelstoß, AWOL) survives the novel and even appears in its underwhelming sequel, The Road Back. Movie Tjaden is wounded and kills himself with a fork in the field hospital. Kat’s death, one of the most poignant scenes of the novel and both previous film versions, is altered so that rather than suffering a minor wound and being killed by shrapnel as Bäumer, unaware, carries him to the aid station, he is shot by a scowling French farmboy while stealing eggs and bleeds to death.

I go into detail here not only because the alterations are so extreme but because most have clearly been made for shock value. (People in the theatre visibly jumped and turned away in disgust when Tjaden started stabbing himself.) The film is as subtle as a sledgehammer.

The structural changes are more extreme. Huge sections of the story are missing entirely. Bäumer and his friends’ training under the martinet Corporal Himmelstoß, Bäumer’s time home on leave, Bäumer’s time recovering from his wound with Kropp in a military hospital—these subplots, which are not only thematically important but provide crucial moments in Bäumer’s character arc, and many smaller incidents are gone.

All of this has been left out in order to facilitate the strangest artistic choice made by the filmmakers: to compress the years-long story of the novel into the final three days of the war. Following a brief prologue set in the spring of 1917, the film picks back up with Bäumer and his comrades on November 8, 1918. Their activities at this time—patrolling, scrounging, flirting with French farm girls, reading the mail, going up to the front again—are intercut with the peace mission of Matthias Erzberger, the Centre Party politician who met French Marshal Ferdinand Foch and signed the armistice that ended the war.

Did that summary sound like it had turned into the introduction to a Wikipedia article to you? That’s how out of place this subplot feels. The inclusion of Erzberger and the armistice negotiations—scenes around which Bäumer’s entire story has been reorganized—wrecks the film.

The problem with jettisoning large parts of your source material and inserting a lot of original material—Peter Jackson’s Hobbit movies also come to mind—is the almost inevitable mismatch in quality. Great novels become classics for a reason. Who do you think you are to improve them? If you’re going to do this, you had better insert really, really good material, something that tonally and thematically enhances and reinforces the point of the original. Occasionally this works—the Coen brothers’ True Grit pretty seamlessly blends verbatim adaptations of Charles Portis’s novel with scenes and dialogue of their own—but more often it weakens things.

Where All Quiet adds to the novel, it falls back on the hoariest World War I clichés available. Erzberger’s real-life mission spurs the fictional General Friedrichs, in the last few hours of the war, to launch an attack on French positions out of spite. This is pure invention. (A few historians have pointed out that if you want a real historical example of a hardass general who got his men killed on the last day of the war for no reason, you should be looking for an American.) Friedrichs is a cartoon character: an overweight, goggle-eyed Prussian with a shaved head and handlebar mustache who fulminates against the Social Democrats over champagne in his chateau while his men die in the mud. I can’t fault the actor; he does his best with a caricature. But a caricature it is.

These changes also grant the film an omniscience that is pointedly lacking in young Paul Bäumer’s narration in the novel. Like any soldier, all he knows of the war is the bit he sees, which in a trench is little enough. Bäumer himself says that the only important things to him are the purely practical things—food, sleep, boots, a comfortable toilet seat, the best weapons for hand-to-hand combat—in the little patch of the war where he and his friends are trying to survive. What matters in the novel, all that matters, is Bäumer, his friends, his slow-motion destruction. He is quite explicitly a stand-in for an entire generation. Roping in Erzberger and Foch gives the film a top-down political perspective that Remarque quite rightly chose not to give his narrator. In this way the film achieves political awareness at the expense of the thing that made the story powerful.

That’s a lot of detail, but I don’t mean to be laborious. I want to illustrate specifically the results of the filmmakers’ artistic approach to Remarque’s novel. All of these problems, as I suggest above, stem from a misapprehension of what All Quiet on the Western Front is meant to say and what it is that makes its message so moving.

Irony and pointlessness

I’ve seen a number of critics and online fans of this new film, when someone has dared to point out how badly it deviates from the book, argue that the changes don’t really matter. Two representative examples pulled from YouTube: “[Y]ou’re missing the point of it all: this is the movie that best depicts the meat grinder that was this war,” and, speaking of clichés, “To people that say that it isn't an accurate adaptation, at the end of the day, the book’s point was to make people understand that war is hell and no movie has come close to eliciting that feeling to me like this.”

But here’s the thing—none of that is, in fact, All Quiet on the Western Front’s point.

This should be obvious. “War is hell” is a platitude. It’s a cliché. It’s a substance-free statement that can be used as both excuse and condemnation; one can apply it to any conflict and people will nod piously. (Remember that the man who made that expression famous died in 1891; he was not talking about the industrialized slaughter of conscripts in World War I but the much smaller-scale wars of nationalist suppression he ruthlessly waged against Southerners and Indians.) But platitudes stretched to movie length are boring. And is there anyone today who doesn’t “understand that war is hell”? Why bother with the obvious?

I’d argue instead that what makes All Quiet on the Western Front a tragedy is not the horror of what happens in major assaults, trench raids, nighttime patrols, or artillery barrages, but its pointlessness.

One of the things I’ve come to admire about Remarque’s novel over more than twenty years and many readings is its deep and subtle irony. Remarque suffuses his story with irony. Positively, this creates nuance reflective of the complexity of real life. When he arrives at the front for the first time, for instance, the hated drill instructor Corporal Himmelstoß turns out to have redeeming qualities after all, not least real physical courage. Negatively, Bäumer and his friends find that nothing they do matters.

The book is full of examples. Every major episode makes this point. Steal food, earn a medal, get ahold of some nice comfortable boots, trick out your personal toilet seat, convince a French girl to sleep with you, avoid catching your head in the telephone wire over the road, learn how to identify artillery shells by sound, tell the cook that the entire company is here for lunch, tell the people at home what the war is actually like, be brave, be cowardly—none of it makes a difference. That, not the hellishness, the dismemberment, or the filth and discomfort, is what makes modern war terrible.

The book’s two climactic episodes drive the point home. In the first, Kat receives a minor leg wound from some shrapnel. Bäumer carries him to an aid station only to find that, at some point along the way, more shrapnel has hit Kat in the head and killed him. Bäumer didn’t even notice. All that effort and Kat dies anyway. The second is the novel’s famous concluding note, the only part not written in the voice of Bäumer himself:

He fell in October 1918, on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to the single sentence: All quiet on the Western Front. He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come.

The irony is not that a huge, horrific attack was ordered by a bonehead general just hours before the armistice—something that would be remarkable—but that the snuffing out of one young soldier’s life is not worth noting. It doesn’t even matter specifically what day it is. “All quiet” or, to translate the original literally, “nothing new.”

Both of these incidents make it into the movie and both are altered according to the filmmakers’ vision, and both lose the nuance and subtlety that make the novel so poignant.

Remarque’s novel is painful because the reader is won over by a band of young men whose worth Remarque makes obvious and whose destruction he shows to be pointless. The film is painful because it screams in your face for two and a half hours. One of these is not only a more truthful dramatization of modern war, it is better art, and it will be remembered far longer.

Conclusion

I’ve just spent a hundreds of words being the “The book was better” guy, but when a book is as good as All Quiet on the Western Front it pays to respect it. This film simply uses the title.

I do, however, want to end on a note of praise. Where the film does stick closely to the book it excels. Again, most of the material taken from the book consists of individual images (a naked corpse high in a tree, blown out of its uniform by a trench mortar), repurposed scenes (the novel’s darkly humorous and ironic opening scene at a field kitchen, shifted in the film to the final act and made another moment of horror), or specific lines of dialogue, but one sequence in particular stands out as an example of what the filmmakers might have done with a closer, more faithful adaptation.

One of the most celebrated scenes in the novel, one rendered in all three film versions now, is that in which Bäumer takes cover in a crater during a French counterattack and stabs a French soldier who unwittingly jumps in next to him. Both are left isolated in no-man’s-land, and Bäumer watches the Frenchman die, choking on his own blood, for hours. After that he goes through the man’s wallet and learns about the man he has just killed.

This All Quiet dramatizes this sequence brilliantly, and is one of the few places where I’d say more realistic gore has improved upon previous versions. The Frenchman’s death is agonizing; watching it wrecks not only Bäumer but the audience. And going through the dead man’s effects to find his name, his occupation, a photo of his wife and daughter quietly achieves what the entire rest of the movie has laboriously striven with noise, blood, and guts to do.

That’s a credit to Remarque. As for this film, it was for me a huge If only.

If you’re looking for World War I-branded action in an authentic pitch of icky horror, if you just want a war movie produced to the highest technical standards of modern filmmaking, if you want to see Saint-Charmand tanks onscreen for the very first time, or if you’re trying to dissuade someone from joining the military—all reasons I’ve seen given out to watch this film—then perhaps this All Quiet on the Western Front is worth seeing. But if you’re looking for a film version of the novel, this just isn’t it.

The world of the day after tomorrow

As we close out 2022, here’s Ernst Jünger in 1922:

We have become old and comfortable like the elderly. It has become a crime to be or to have more than others. Now, unaccustomed to the strong intoxicants, men and power have become an abomination to us; our new gods are the masses and equality. If the masses cannot become like the few, then let the few become like the masses. Politics, theater, artists, cafes, patent leather shoes, posters, newspapers, morals, the Europe of tomorrow, the world of the day after tomorrow: the thundering masses. Like a thousand-headed beast, crushing all that does not allow itself to be swallowed up, envious, parvenu-like, cruel. Once again, the individual was defeated, and didn’t his own representatives betray him? We live too close to each other, our great cities are grating millstones, rushing torrents that grind us against each other like pebbles. Too hard, the life; don’t we have our flickering life? Too hard, the heroes; aren’t these flickering screen heroes enough for us? And how beautifully they flow, smooth and silent, these stories. You sit in the cushion and all the nations, all the adventures of the world swim through your brain, as light and gestalt as an opium dream.

This comes from War as an Inner Experience, a short collection of essays elaborating on some of the themes latent in Storm of Steel, and it is striking how closely in anticipates the concerns and arguments of the longer and more sophisticated The Forest Passage, published almost thirty years later. It is also striking how closely this description of Jünger’s world before and after the war resembles the world of a century later with its angry levelling, its conformity, its politics of envy, its proud and corrupt urbanism, and most especially its retreat from the real and the difficult into the easy and imaginary. Excessive screentime is not a new problem.

This passage prompted a lot of thinking on my part, but I only have time for a little of it here. It occurs to me that one could respond a couple ways to what Jünger writes here:

• A person of one persuasion might—ignoring the present-tense in the passage—say, “How prophetic! Look at how bad things have gotten!”

• A person of the opposite persuasion might say, “Things haven’t gotten worse! That you perceive this as applying to 2022 just proves that some people will always be speaking doom no matter how good things get.”

To which I say You’re both right—things have gotten bad, and we have not fallen from a golden age—because a century is too short a perspective from which to be viewing the trends between Jünger’s time and our own. Things have been bad in many of the same ways for a very long time. The problems of 2022 are different from those of 1922 not in kind, but in degree.

The Forest Passage was the first book I finished reading in 2022, making this passage of War as an Inner Experience a nice thematic bookend. So that I don’t end this year of blogging on too dour a note, let me refer back to a post from January about The Forest Passage, where I quote Jünger’s 1951 prediction of what kind of men the modern world would produce—as well as the beginnings of a remedy:

[M]an is suffering a loss, and this loss explains the manifest grayness and hopelessness of his existence. . . . Giving this man an inkling of what has been taken from him, even in the best possible present circumstances, and of what immense power still rests within him—this is the theological task.

I’ve returned to this line and meditated on it many times this year. Living so that the gray and hopeless modern man will feel “what has been taken from him”—let this be our hope, motto, and prayer for 2023.

Notes on rereading Storm of Steel

Ernst Jünger as a Private early in the war, as an Iron Cross recipient in 1916, as a highly decorated officer wearing his Pour-le-Merite postwar, in 1920

Last week I ran across the following meme. It perfectly captures the chief contrast between two of the great authors produced by the First World War—Erich Maria Remarque, author of All Quiet on the Western Front, and Ernst Jünger, author of Storm of Steel—as well as the perspectives of their books:

I laughed, of course, and gleefully reshared it with the caption “I never get tired of recommending Jünger to students precisely because they aren’t prepared for this.”

The “this” being the fundamental mismatch between what they expect thematically, didactically, from a harrowing war story and what they actually get from Storm of Steel. They’ve all gotten the canned antiwar messaging of high school reading lists (All Quiet being one of the books that created the template for a genre that hasn’t changed much in a hundred years), and have absorbed the structure or arc of any basic antiwar story without even realizing it.

But here’s a memoir, I tell them, in which the author essentially spends 300 pages telling you: The war was a continuous, 24/7, 365-day-a-year horror show. It was terrible from beginning to end. It was hell. And I loved it.

They don’t know what to do with that. And yet they always end up responding strongly to the long excerpt I have them read from the chapter on Guillemont.

But beyond being amusing, this meme got me wanting to reread Storm of Steel, something I’ve been intending to do for years. So the day I ran across this, I got exactly that edition* off my shelf and started reading. Four days later, I had already finished.

The following isn’t exactly a review, more a series of notes or observations as I reread it all the way through for the first time in ten years.

Tone

The most striking thing about Storm of Steel is its tone. I say striking because it takes hold of the reader immediately and strongly affects him all the way through—and yet it is difficult to describe. Google Ernst Jünger or Storm of Steel and take a few minutes looking at the jarring difference of opinions on his work. You’ll find people accusing it of being pro-war or jingoistic and others describing it as clearly antiwar. Neither opinion is based on any overt statement in the book, because Jünger never raises political questions and has nothing to say about the causes of the war or the justness of the techniques with which it was waged.

And so readers have to fall back on what he describes and how he describes it. That’s where his remarkable tone comes in.

I struggle to describe it myself. There is no one word for it. I’ve seen people describe it as cold or inhuman. These are flatly wrong, and critics who describe the book this way are usually assuming something about Jünger personally and projecting that onto the book. Dispassionate suggests itself, though Jünger describes plenty of high emotion, from elation to terror, and even describes himself weeping on multiple occasions.

Perhaps the best word is forthright. Jünger’s narration and descriptions, analytically observed and cataloged with his entomologist’s eye,** are bracingly, disturbingly forthright. He tells but does not explain, much less praise or condemn. These concerns lie outside his purpose, which is to relate what he lived through and what it was like. And he narrates everything in the book with the same unflappable forthrightness, whether his rookie mistakes on sentry duty, the miserable conditions of trench life, the joy of finding an abandoned store of wine, the variety and effects of British and French grenades, the corpses of the dead, the death of a little girl killed by British shrapnel, the excitement of going over the top, the terror of hand-to-hand combat, the experience of being hit by shell fragments, caught in barbed wire, shot through the chest.

All of these are narrated so bluntly, so matter-of-factly, that they seem to need no literary adornment, though Jünger was a skilled craftsman and carefully worked over his diaries to produce this book. The result is uniquely horrifying—and thrilling.

That’s the subject of the meme above, in which Remarque reacts to the horror in the expected, clichéd way, and Jünger decidedly does not.*** I think that’s also why so many people interpret Jünger so differently. War described this unflinchingly shouldn’t be exciting… should it? What do we make of someone who finds that he enjoys and excels at something so horrible? Hence the accusations of coldness or inhumanity, or, further, of jingoism or fascism or social Darwinism or worse.

Sympathy

But actually reading the book, one finds enjoyment of danger and conflict without bloodlust. Jünger describes killing plenty of enemy soldiers—often point-blank, intimately—but just as often he passes up the chance to kill an enemy. Interestingly, this happens more often in the later, wilder, more violent passages of the book from Operation Michael (Spring 1918) onward, and, in one episode late in the war, Jünger explicitly contrasts himself with a ferocious stormtroop leader he joins in an attack. Jünger, you might be surprised to learn by this point of the book, is invigorated by someone yet more eager than himself.

Similarly, Jünger takes no joy in destruction for its own sake. While never editorializing or effusively emoting over it, it is clear that the destruction of whole towns and villages and the annihilation of landscapes is a bad thing. And every time he encounters his enemies outside combat, he looks upon them with sympathy and even respect. Likewise with the French or Flemish civilians in the rear—he shows no disdain, no exploitative greed, no animosity whatsoever, and always interacts politely and even familiarly. Most often the civilians appear as friendly or affectionate figures, and Jünger presents their evacuation when the war reaches their homes as unfortunate. Again, without explicitly saying so.

Thrilling or horrifying? Ja.

All of which only brings us back, again and again, like Jünger himself, to the combat. And it is thrilling. Seldom have I read a true story with as much continuous excitement as when Jünger goes into the line with his company, endures British and French bombardment, gets stranded far ahead of the German lines and shoots his way out, is surprised by but manages to defeat a British Indian colonial unit far larger than his own, or, especially, when he begins the breathtaking, overwhelming assaults in the Spring 1918 offensive, with his men rushing over battlefields that have sat immovable for three years.

It is also horrible, with the destruction of lives by shrapnel, bullets, gas, infection, artillery—powerful enough simply to vaporize some men—and dumb accident all presented bluntly, in unstinting detail, like a naturalist describing lions taking apart a zebra. It could provoke what some on the internet call mood whiplash, but somehow Jünger conveys all of this to the reader as a sensible, coherent, unified experience.

One suspects that it really could not be thrilling without being horrible—and vice versa. This is a tension Jünger clearly felt and that Storm of Steel makes the reader feel like no other book, all of which is part of Jünger’s forthrightness. Most other war novels and memoirs skew toward the horrible; a few, mostly from long ago, toward the thrilling or exciting or even the morally uplifting.

Jünger refuses easier understandings of what he lived through. His work suggests that the people horrified by war are right. And so are the people thrilled by it. Throughout Storm of Steel, Jünger is describing a state, a condition, and how do you rage against a state? War just is.

Philosophizing

One gets all of this from reading between the lines, from letting the Storm pass over you, so to speak, and listening to the lightning and feeling the wind and the pelting rain. Jünger describes bluntly but doesn’t preach, at least not most of the time. There are isolated passages of reflection in which Jünger drifts into what Mark Twain—brutally but, to be frank, accurately—described as “the sort of luminous intellectual fog” of German philosophizing,† but he avoids the world-historical opining of Remarque or other explicitly antiwar authors.

One thinks of Dalton Trumbo’s novel Johnny Got His Gun, which begins as a brilliant modernist stream-of-conscious story and ends as a straightforward Marxist sermon, or the unfortunate Willy Peter Reese, who was killed on the Eastern Front during World War II and left behind an unfinished memoir so densely packed with philosophical and poetical musings as to be almost unreadable for long stretches.‡

The edition of Storm of Steel I read this time includes a short foreword by Karl Marlantes, veteran of Vietnam and author of the brilliant novel Matterhorn based on his experiences as a Marine platoon commander. Marlantes is the perfect person to introduce Jünger. Like Storm of Steel, Matterhorn is vividly and painstakingly descriptive and avoids overt philosophizing or didactic messaging, deriving its power from the forcefulness with which it presents what happened. Both have an absorbing, dreamlike quality once they take hold of the reader. In some places, both are a fever-dream.

Marlantes’s verdict on Jünger, with whom he feels an affinity despite also being separated by a vast gulf: he was “a different breed of man: the born warrior.”

Conclusion

Like I said, this is more a grab-bag of notes, observations, and meditations than a straightforward review. Like the war Jünger fought in and wrote about, Storm of Steel is fundamentally impossible to summarize and can only be described, and is therefore prone to misinterpretation. One has to experience it. And I strongly recommend experiencing Storm of Steel to everyone.

Notes:

*I do not own any German edition of the original, In Stahlgewittern, though that is on my wish list. This edition is the Michael Hofmann translation of Jünger’s last revision of the book in 1961. There is an online fan culture for the “original” 1929 English translation of Jünger’s second revision, though that translation is rife with inaccuracies and most widely available in a print-on-demand reprint that is apparently loaded with typos.

**The memoir that I think offers the closest point of comparison in tone and style to Storm of Steel—while still being a very different book—is EB Sledge’s With the Old Breed. Tellingly, both men became zoologists after the war.

***A further contrast between the two books that I’ll just drop here: Linguistically, their titles also suggest a key difference in tone and perspective. Remarque’s book, in German, is Im Westen nichts neues, i.e. “Nothing new in the West.” Im Westen is in the dative case, suggesting stasis and therefore pointlessness. Nichts neues, nothing new, is the book’s central, bitter irony. But Jünger’s title, In Stahlgewittern (a Gewitter is a thunderstorm), is in the accusative case, which in German suggests movement (one stands in a room datively, but goes in[to] the room accusatively). Grammatically, the title could just as accurately be translated Into the Steel Storm. This is precisely Jünger’s journey in the book, and where he takes the reader.

†To see more of Jünger in this mode, read Copse 125, a memoir in which he expanded upon one specific monthlong stretch in the trenches in the summer of 1918. The contrast is striking. I read it this past spring.

‡I read Reese’s book A Stranger to Myself a few years ago, also in a translation by Hofmann. Interestingly, where Hofmann includes as footnotes passages from Reese’s diaries—which, like Jünger, he had used as the raw material to construct a memoir—they are much more vivid, direct, and concrete than the memoir he based on them.

All Quiet on the Western Front trailer reaction

Felix Kammerer as Paul Bäumer in All Quiet on the Western Front

Update: I finally watched this new version of All Quiet on the Western Front, and in theatres! I had mixed feelings about it. You can read my long, ambivalent review here.

Here’s a movie I’ve been hoping for and imagining for myself for more than twenty years. Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front was one of my two great high school discoveries—the other being The Lord of the Rings—and the very first book I ever ordered from Amazon. (The listing for the mass market paperback, which has been through at least two cover redesigns since I was in high school, helpfully informs me that I last ordered a copy on February 8, 2000, a date that might as well be written in cuneiform.) All through college I fiddled with screenplay adaptations and filled notebooks with storyboards, especially for the sweeping crane shots of no-man’s-land I envisioned. I watched the 1930 and 1979 adaptations. But most importantly I read and reread the book. It absorbed me every time.

This new adaptation has been in the works for a long time, and, having a fan’s proprietary interest in it, I’ve checked in on it regularly for years. Directors came and went. Most recently I learned that it had been reimagined as a German-language adaptation—the first time this German novel has been filmed in the author’s native language—with Daniel Brühl attached to star. I was skeptical about the casting—Brühl was around forty when I first heard about his casting, and though youthful in a Matthew Broderick way I thought he’d still be a hard sell as high schooler-turned-soldier Paul Baümer.

And, two days ago, a trailer finally appeared.

I don’t have much to say in this initial “reaction,” except to encourage y’all to check the trailer out and, of course, to read the novel if for some reason you haven’t. But I do have a few notes and observations.

The trailer is a teaser, and so above characters, plot, or message it is selling a mood. It works. What Netflix has chosen to give us here is both eerie and beautiful—not to mention intense. Previous film versions have never shied away from the violence described in the novel but this version appears to make it very direct and personal, and the attention to atmosphere—the wet, the cold, the textures of clothing and earth and mud and steel, the darkness splintered by the light of flares—gives even this minute or two of footage a tactile quality that could make its action hit very hard.

Brühl, as it turns out, is not playing the protagonist, Paul Baümer. Wikipedia lists him as Matthias Erzberger, a politician who signed the armistice on behalf of Germany’s interim government in November 1918 and was eventually assassinated by the nationalist Organisation Consul. (I read an autobiographical novel by a former OC member last year.) Erzberger does not appear in the novel, which maintains a pretty cynical and mistrustful stance toward all politicians of whatever stripe. What role Erzberger and his appearance will play in this version of the story is unclear to me.

The actor who does play Baümer, Felix Kammerer, is appropriately young and fresh-faced. He even looks strikingly like the infantryman on the jacket of the first English edition of All Quiet. His youth and the youth of his friends, a “generation destroyed by the war” as Remarque puts it in the novel’s epigraph, is an important aspect of the story. The contrast between young, eager Paul and his classmates and Paul as the last, numb, embittered survivor lends the novel a lot of its power, as evidenced by the way just about every war novel since as imitated it.

I’m not sure yet, based on this trailer, who is who among the boys who enlist with Baümer, but the group looks good and short clips of hijinks behind the lines convey some of the fun the novel occasionally brings in—which is also a reminder of these men’s relative youth and immaturity.

One standout, and potentially a big improvement over both previous adaptations, is the actor playing “Kat” Katczinsky, an older soldier and mentor to the youths of Paul’s generation. The 1930 adaptation cast the gruff, burly, bulldog-faced fifty-year old Louis Wolheim as Kat, and the filmmakers behind the 1979 version clearly had Wolheim in mind when they cast Ernest Borgnine—who was over sixty and looked and acted like it—in the same role. Wolheim was brilliant in the part, but as portrayed in both films so far Kat is a far cry from the character in the novel: an unassuming reservist of about forty whose thin frame, stooped shoulders, and drooping mustache disguise his capability and good sense. Albrecht Schuch is the right age and has the right unassuming appearance (including the mustache this time!) to give us the character readers have imagined for nearly a hundred years. Here’s hoping.

I said I didn’t have much to say, so I’ll stop there. Judging just by the two minutes we have, this adaptation looks good. Its cinematography and attention to detail and atmosphere look to be on par with those of 1917, the best World War I film in a long time, and if it tells the novel’s story well it could refresh Paul Baümer and his doomed schoolmates for a new audience.

In the meantime, read the novel. Watch one of the previous adaptations, too, as both have their strengths. The 1930 one starring Lew Ayres is by far the better, and has some really intense pre-Code battle scenes, and the 1979 one has a brilliant turn by the late Ian Holm as Corporal Himmelstoß, Paul’s drill instructor. And for some bracing counterprogramming that will enrich both All Quiet on the Western Front and itself, read Ernst Jünger’s Storm of Steel, which is the German war classic that I’ve been imagining as a movie for the last several years. Maybe they’ll get to that one next.

Greenmantle

Today for John Buchan June, we look at the sequel to The Thirty-Nine Steps, a novel that expands upon everything that made that rousing, fast-paced, and timely thriller successful into a tale that is part spy novel, part man-on-the-run thriller, part travelogue, and part war story—Greenmantle.

Greenmantle begins with hero of The Thirty-Nine Steps, Richard Hannay, resting and recuperating back home in England. It is December of 1915, Hannay is now Major Hannay, and he has been wounded leading an attack on the Western Front. Hannay receives an urgent invitation to meet Sir Walter Bullivant, the man with whom, in the previous story, he had finally been able to find refuge and to confide in after weeks on the run from German spies.

Bullivant tells Hannay that a British agent, staggering wounded into a British outpost in the Middle East, had delivered a message consisting of only three words before he died, three words that Bullivant believes may be clues to German strategic intentions in the east. The agent, Bullivant reveals, was his son, and Bullivant asks Hannay to use the same skills that had helped him unravel the Black Stone’s plot against Britain a few years earlier to infiltrate German intelligence and uncover their plans. Hannay hesitates but, duty-bound and not one to shrink from task just because it’s impossible, agrees.

Bullivant pairs Hannay with John S Blenkiron, an eccentric but brilliant intelligence operative—and an American, and so theoretically neutral. Hannay also asks his brother officer Sandy Arbuthnot, also recuperating from wounds received on the Western Front, to join them. Arbuthnot has years of experience in the Balkans and Middle East gained before the war and is a master of languages and local customs. He will prove a crucial part of operation, though not in any way they could have predicted.

Hannay, Blenkiron, and Arbuthnot agree to split up, infiltrate enemy territory, and reconnect in Istanbul in the new year. Hannay takes ship for Portugal, where he runs into his old friend Peter Pienaar, a Boer hunter and outdoorsman, and together they pass themselves off as German sympathizing South Africans seeking revenge against the British. Clandestinely sent to Germany, they are interrogated by Colonel von Stumm, a brutish intelligence officer tasked with assessing their usefulness. He separates Hannay from Pienaar, and, following a brawl at Stumm’s secluded home in Bavaria, Hannay flees. He is a hunted man once more.

Hannay’s situation is desperate, but he has already begun to decipher the first of the clues Bullivant’s son had revealed—the identity of a dangerous female operative in the Middle East, Hilda von Einem.

At the midpoint of the novel, Hannay, Blenkiron, Arbuthnot, and even Pienaar manage to link up pool the information gathered in their travels. What emerges from their observations and disparate bits of intelligence is the outline of a German plot: Hilda von Einem, acting as handler, has cultivated a prominent Muslim cleric called Greenmantle, a figure prophesied in old mystical poetry and whom the Germans intend to use. The Germans hope that, fired by the simplifying and purifying spirit of revival and following the banner of Greenmantle, Muslims will make a potent insurgent force in the region and decisively shift the balance against Britain, France, Russia, and their allies. In short, they hope to provoke jihad.

Unfortunately for Hilda von Einem, Greenmantle has terminal cancer. His time is short—and so the Germans are moving quickly. This was the information Sir Walter Bullivant’s son gave his life to get to the British.

Hannay and his team travel eastwards, into the heart of the Ottoman Empire and to the headwaters of the Euphrates in the mountains north of Mesopotamia. They travel under cover, with Hannay as a member of Hilda von Einem’s entourage, but are identified and pursued by Rasta Bey, an arrogant and powerful Young Turk whom Hannay has crossed and humiliated several times en route to Istanbul. And as an added threat, the dreaded Colonel von Stumm reappears. This section of the novel is a tightrope walk of aliases and concealed identities, cross-country chases, captures and escapes, and, finally, the brutality of modern trench warfare. Here individual initiative, resourcefulness, and guts confront the overwhelming, indiscriminate destructive power of artillery.

By the end, Hannay and the others have blown their cover and are on the run for a final time, hopelessly outnumbered and desperately trying to deliver details of a forthcoming German and Ottoman attack to the Russians so that they can break the siege, push the Ottomans back, stop Hilda von Einem, and, just possibly, win the war.

Greenmantle has all the strengths of The Thirty-Nine Steps that I wrote about a few weeks ago—strong writing, excellent pacing, interesting characters, thrilling episodes (the conclusion is one of the best last stands I’ve read in fiction), as well as all the genre-defining features that that novel pioneered, especially the plot tied to plausible real-life politics and world events. TE Lawrence, who was in a position to know, later wrote that “Greenmantle has more than a flavour of truth.” But it also broadens and deepens what The Thirty-Nine Steps accomplished so masterfully. In this respect it is a true sequel, both building upon and improving upon all the best elements of its predecessor.

And like all good sequels, it is also different enough to avoid retreading the same ground. In his introduction to the authorized edition, Buchan biographer and literary critic Allan Massie writes that where The Thirty-Nine Steps is a “chase” novel, Greenmantle is a “quest” novel. I think that’s just about right. Greenmantle is much longer than The Thirty-Nine Steps but maintains the same excitement and brisk momentum. In the first half, Hannay ends up on the run first from Stumm and then from Rasta Bey. He faces personal dangers at every turn and his courage and resourcefulness are sorely tested. In the second, Hannay and his team end up on the run from pretty much everyone. What holds this pattern of infiltration, exposure, and flight together, though, is Hannay’s mission, his quest—to divine German intentions.

But Hannay’s work is not done once they have discovered Hilda von Einem and Greenmantle; the stakes are even higher than in the first half, and Hannay and the others, in true quest fashion, confront their dangers not individually but as a team: Hannay the principled leader and jack of all trades, Pienaar the unflinching survivalist genius, Blenkiron the brains of the operation, and Arbuthnot the heart and soul. They would not succeed without all of them, and all of them is what their mission will require.

John Buchan in uniform, May 1917

Greenmantle is also a more sweeping story than its predecessor. Hannay begins the story in England before traveling to Lisbon and traversing the whole breadth of Europe by rail, on foot, and by river barge before arriving in Mesopotamia. Buchan successfully conveys the scope and intensity of the First World War and not a little of its complexity and pathos.

This pathos is only possible because of Greenmantle’s scope—it is both a panorama of the entire war in Europe and the Middle East and a series of strikingly intimate episodes informed by the experiences of not only of spies but of ordinary soldiers, civilians, tribesmen, sailors, bandits, and the leaders of nations. Buchan’s immense powers of sympathy, which I wrote about when I reviewed Prester John, are on full display. Regardless of which side they are on, almost all of Greenmantle’s characters have admirable qualities, and almost none is presented as irredeemably evil. Even the Kaiser, whom Hannay meets in one of the most surprising and interesting incidents in the novel, is presented sympathetically. (It is worth recalling that Buchan wrote this novel at a time when all Germans, but the Kaiser especially, were quite literally demonized.) Only those like Stumm and Rasta Bey, functionaries so compromised by ideological nationalism and pragmatism and personal cruelty, seem to be beyond hope, but it is they who have given the war the exceptional prolonged savagery that Hannay and his fellows must navigate.

The sympathy with which Buchan writes allows Hannay staunch loyalties while seasoning and softening them. The most striking example comes during Hannay’s flight across Bavaria to the Danube. On foot in the snow, he falls ill and risks capture to ask for help from a German woman living in an isolated hut. She takes him in despite having to care for her three children alone. One night after Christmas, he learns more about her:

As we sat there in the firelight, with the three white-headed children staring at me with saucer eyes, and smiling when I looked their way, the woman talked. Her man had gone to the wars on the Eastern front, and the last she had heard from him he was in a Polish bog and longing for his dry native woodlands. The struggle meant little to her. It was an act of God, a thunderbolt out of the sky, which had taken a husband from her, and might soon make her a widow and her children fatherless. . . . She was a decent soul, with no bitterness against anybody, not even the Russians if they would spare her man.

That night I realized the crazy folly of war. When I saw the splintered shell of Ypres and heard hideous tales of German doings, I used to want to see the whole land of the Boche given up to fire and sword. I thought we could never end the war properly without giving the Huns some of their own medicine. But that woodcutter’s cottage cured me of such nightmares. I was for punishing the guilty but letting the innocent go free. It was our business to thank God and keep our hands clean from the ugly blunders to which Germany’s madness had driven her. What good would it do Christian folk to burn poor little huts like this and leave children’s bodies by the wayside? To be able to laugh and to be merciful are the only things that make man better than the beasts.

To be “better than the beasts”—for the sake of people like this woman and her children, for the personal honor and character of men like Hannay, and for civilization itself despite temptations to domination, cruelty, and ruthless pragmatism—would work as the guiding principle of all of Buchan’s heroes. And it is ultimately what’s at stake in Hannay’s mission.

I could say much more—alongside its artistic merits, Greenmantle has been credited with predicting the rise of Islamist extremism—but I think what gives this novel its peculiar staying power is the excitement of its plot and action, the involving multidimensional characters and their varying skillsets, and, again, its pathos. Greenmantle takes all that made Richard Hannay’s first adventure thrilling and deepens it. It is not just an adventure of murder, espionage, and the threat of war, but of the testing of the soul.

The National Medal of Honor Heritage Center

Last week was my spring break, and my wife and I took the kids to Chattanooga for a long weekend. We had two sites we wanted to make sure to visit: Chickamauga battlefield, about which more later, and the Tennessee Aquarium. We also obeyed the classic command to see Rock City and, as an extra treat, visited Chattanooga’s National Medal of Honor Heritage Center.

The museum

The Charles H Coolidge National Medal of Honor Heritage Center, named for a Chattanooga native who is currently the only living Medal of Honor recipient from the ETO during World War II, is a stellar little museum. We visited on a whim following our morning at the Tennessee Aquarium; the Heritage Center is located right next door on the same plaza.

After paying a modest entrance fee the tour begins upstairs with an interactive media room. Computers set into tables allow visitors to search a database of Medal of Honor recipients, and digital banners on the walls display continuously changing photos of recipients both well known and obscure. My favorite feature of this room was a wall-sized touchscreen display featuring a 3D globe dotted with the locations of Medal of Honor actions, each of which you could tap on to bring up a box with a photo of the recipient, the date of the incident, and the citation. The clusters of dots, especially around the battlefields of all theatres of the Civil War and in western Europe in both World Wars, as well as scattered across the Pacific and other often surprising out-of-the-way places, gives you a graphic sense of where the United States’ wars have been fought, as well as the scale of the fighting.

From the interactive room you enter a theatre for a short film about the Medal and its history. From here, you continue through the best part of the museum, a carefully designed series of exhibits walking you through American wars since the Civil War. Each exhibit has a life-size diorama of two or three Medal of Honor recipients from the conflict. These are exceptionally well done, with great attention to detail. Others are featured in large-scale photographs or well-designed displays with uniforms, artifacts—the museum preserves over 6,000 items related to the Medal of Honor—and some element of the environment in which those profiled earned the medal: the cliffs at Hacksaw Ridge, a sandbagged hootch for three Vietnam recipients, a dusty road for one who fought in Iraq. A few have video reenactments that play in screens set into the walls, and at several points a multimedia station features interviews with living Medal of Honor recipients.

Among those profiled are Dr Mary Walker, the only female Medal of Honor recipient; Civil War officers James Andrews (of the Great Locomotive Chase) and Arthur MacArthur (father of Douglas); Buffalo soldier George Jordan; World War I soldiers Charles Whittlesey, Joseph Adkison, and Alvin York; conscientious objector turned medic Desmond Doss; Marine officer Alexander Bonnyman; and Kyle Carpenter. There are a great many others as well.

While I didn’t have the luxury of stopping to read every sign or piece of information—touring with a six- and a four-year old keeps you moving—the displays offered lots of opportunities to tell stories and talk to the kids about what they were seeing. It’s hard to know what sticks, but they came away seeming to appreciate more what being brave and sacrificing for others means.

This was especially true of the Vietnam display. While many of those profiled in the dioramas lived to fight again or to tell their stories to future generations, the men whose stories were selected to represent Vietnam—Marine Rodney Davis and Navy corpsman David Ray—were killed in action, both by taking the blast of enemy grenades in order to save others. A recurrent theme of the museum, a quotation displayed in several places, is John 15:13: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” The museum shows vividly what this means on the battlefield.

Other notes

The museum has a good gift shop with well-selected items that are relevant to the museum’s topic and don’t reduce its theme to kitsch (something you can’t always count on with museum gift shops). There’s an especially good selection of books; I picked up Sergeant York: His Own Life Story and War Diary, which I’ve been looking forward to reading since it was reissued for the centennial of his actions in the Meuse-Argonne offensive.

The staff and volunteers were friendly, helpful, and very accommodating to a dad touring with two children six and under. I especially appreciated their work; they represented the museum and its mission well.

In conclusion

The Medal of Honor Heritage Center offers an excellent introduction to US military history and the virtues the medal represents: patriotism, citizenship, courage, integrity, sacrifice, and commitment. While informative and moving for adults, it’s also a good place for kids to visit—the dioramas are helpful visuals, and the stories, while presented soberly and realistically, are not prohibitively graphic. I highly recommend visiting if you’re ever in the Chattanooga area.

Four years worse than 2020: An Interlude

Monday I began a series on four years worse than 2020. That day I covered 1315, a year of famine and starvation. Yesterday we looked at 1348, the first full year of the bubonic plague epidemic in Europe commonly known as the Black Death. This year struck a little closer to home, albeit with much greater mortality and severer political, economic, and cultural effects. Today I want to take a step back for

An interlude

I had initially planned on including five years in this series, but lowered it to four as what began as one blog post grew longer and longer and longer. But even narrowing “worse years than 2020” to five was difficult at first. Here are six I considered including, both from the ancient and the more recent past, but that I want to at least look at briefly as way of further broadening our perspective.

1177 BC

I decided not to include this one because there’s no set, specific year for the Late Bronze Age Collapse. This is just the year the archaeologist Eric H Cline used as the title of his excellent book 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Invasion, warfare, the widespread and destructive raiding of the mysterious Sea Peoples, and natural disasters drove the civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean—Egypt, Mycenaean Greece, the Hittites, the Canaanites, and others—into total collapse, with a domino effect that took down the Assyrians and Babylonians.

AD 536

I include this date because I had several people independently mention it to me during the earlier parts of the year, when there was more hysteria and less numbness than now. 536, like 1177 BC above, is a bit of a catch-all for a series of events that played out over a decade or so in the 6th century, including a massive volcanic eruption that caused years of climatic disruption with knock-on effects including crop failure and the first major round of bubonic plague in Europe (“Justinian’s plague,” so called). Serious demographic decline, economic stress and collapse, military upheaval, and other problems resulted everywhere from Britain to China. This year was popularized as a “worst ever” by an article in Science a few years ago. You can read that here.

1863

To look at the United States alone:

At the beginning of the year the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, a measure that has been lionized in the mythology of the national civic religion but actually accomplished little and was extremely unpopular, creating further upset in a North still reeling from the losses of defeats like Fredericksburg late in the previous year. Resentment over the draft and the unpopular shift of the war aims toward emancipation led to the New York City draft riots, racially-inflected mob violence that ripped through the city for almost a week. Several hundred were killed and many more beaten, including freedmen living in the city. The threat of violence was so serious that at one point a Gatling gun was even deployed on the roof of the pro-draft New York Times’s offices.

The Confederacy continued to struggle with supply problems and runaway inflation, and the heavy taxation necessary to support the war effort as well as draft laws viewed as tyrannical caused widespread dissatisfaction among ordinary Southerners. Women in overcrowded, underfed Richmond rioted when turned away by the governor of Virginia, who refused to hear their complaints. Numerous similar incidents occurred in other cities across the South.

On the front, Confederate guerrilla William Quantrill carried out his second raid on Lawrenceville, Kansas; several of the largest and most consequential battles of the American Civil War took place including Chancellorsville, the siege of Vicksburg, the battles of Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge; and the two bloodiest battles of the war, Gettysburg and Chickamauga. Just the latter two accounted for over 85,000 casualties.

1916

The years of the Spanish Flu took more lives but have been talked about a lot this year, but 1916 was no less awful. World War I looms large as it continued to rage on multiple European fronts and in Africa and the Middle East. The wasteful Gallipoli Campaign ended in failure, the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, a revolt that had as its aim the creation of a unified Arab nation-state and ended in the partition of the Ottoman Empire by the Western powers, began; and the Battles of the Somme and Verdun took place which, between the two of them, killed over 600,000 men and wounded many more; and the Russians launched even bloodier offensives in the east. The Armenian genocide, begun by the Turks the year before, continued, with hundreds of thousands more Armenians killed in concentration camps, forced marches through the Syrian desert or in harsh winter conditions, and thousands of women raped. Natural disasters made the war even worse, as on the alpine Italian front, where avalanches in the Dolomites buried thousands. Elsewhere, the United States became further involved in the Mexican Revolution, committing thousands of troops in futile border raids to catch Pancho Villa, as well as invading the Dominican Republic; and the Easter Rising occurred in Dublin.

1933

In Germany: the seizure of power by Hitler and the Nazi Party; the construction of the first Nazi concentration camps; the establishment of the Gestapo; the arrest and brutalization of Jews and political opponents; and the first moves toward rearmament, war, and the Holocaust.

In the United States: peak unemployment as part of the Great Depression and the first Dust Bowl storms; the beginnings of years of political controversy (for those who are into that kind of thing, especially where it concerns the Supreme Court) as FDR is sworn in.

In the Soviet Union: the completion of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, an infrastructure project using political prisoners that killed over 25,000; and peak starvation as a result of a man-made famine in the Ukraine, a punitive measure undertaken by Stalin the knowledge of which is suppressed with the active collusion of Western journalists. The famine ultimately kills over three million through starvation.

Natural disasters: earthquakes in California, China, and Japan, the latter with a resulting tsunami.

2001

This one really shouldn’t need an explanation. Not for my generation, at least.

Next

Tomorrow and Friday we’ll discuss the remaining two years that I’ve chosen for this project. Both of these years occurred within living memory.

1917, isms, and art

“Loyalties as simple as death.” British infantry shelter in A freshly dug trench near the end of 1917.

About a week ago, a friend of mine in the Marine Corps sent me a Slate article about 1917, the best movie of last year and one of the greatest war films ever made. The article is headlined “1917 has one major flaw—it’s irresponsibly nationalistic.” Anyone who has seen 1917 and taken it on its own terms will wonder what on earth the author of the piece is talking about. True to form, the essay has all the high-flying silliness of a typical Slate piece, including a lot implicitlys—a classic indicator of spectral evidence—and condescending oversimplifications and plenty of inane references to Donald Trump. (My favorite: Kaiser Wilhelm II was “a proto-Donald Trump,” which is not only silly but somehow manages to be insulting to both men.)

While I drafted and redrafted this blog post with much longer excerpts, the following paragraph sums up the piece’s argument. Writing that while he enjoyed the craft and technical achievements of 1917, the author

felt very uneasy—not for aesthetic reasons, but for moral ones. “1917,” as its title indicates for the historically well-informed, is a World War I picture. Any film set during that conflict has a responsibility to account for the horrors of nationalism, much as a film that takes place during the Civil War must deal with slavery, and one that occurs during World War II must acknowledge fascism.

To which I say, as politely as I can, no. For two interlocking reasons.

First, because storytellers can tell the stories they want and tell them any way they damn well please. I can’t emphasize this enough. One of the least becoming and most nefarious aspects of contemporary talk about storytelling, whether on film or television or between the covers of books, is the reflexive urge to police who can tell what story and how. The who and what have been particularly hotly contested in the Slough of Despond known as YA fiction. The how is what concerns me here.

In writing that 1917 “must acknowledge the inherent ambiguity of” World War I, the author is ordering Sam Mendes and his co-writers to tell a different story than the one they have chosen to tell. It is a tedious demand that the filmmakers tell a story that he prefers—in this case, an ideologically driven argument about political bogeymen. “Even if we are only being told a microcosmic story about two soldiers trying to survive a dangerous mission,” the author writes, “we should still understand the larger tapestry in which those characters are mere threads.” This is the leftist equivalent of those historians who wanted, needed, had to have scenes of Winston Churchill giving speeches and generals pushing flags around map tables stuck into the finely tuned story of Dunkirk. This kind of bossiness betrays a lack of trust in or appreciation for what the storytellers have used their skill, creativity, and carefully sharpened discernment—their arts—to create. It’s anti-art, and the author’s own admitted admiration for the film, despite the desperate override commands of his ideology, belies that fact.

“It is immoral to tell a story about a war without analyzing the reasons behind that war.” Why? World War II stories “must acknowledge fascism?” What does that even mean? Civil War stories must deal with slavery? No. Some of the greatest entries in Civil War literature barely acknowledge slavery’s existence, much less ruminate on its morality. Here’s one you might have heard of. I myself wrote a Civil War novel in which slavery plays almost no role because that’s not what concerns my characters and not what drives the plot. In short, that’s not what my novel is about.

And that’s my second objection. Introducing the kind of navel-gazing ruminations on isms that tickle people like this Slate writer have no place in the world of 1917 because that’s not what 1917 is about.

As I wrote at length in my review, 1917 is about the experience of combat, the dreariness and terror of the trenches, the toll it takes on the men caught up in the war, and, in a contrast made more striking by the vivid depiction of what life in the trenches was like, the beauty of friendship and home. Nationalism doesn’t come into it—even “implicitly”—because that is not what moves the characters.

Writing almost a hundred years ago in his great book The Everlasting Man, GK Chesterton conveyed the disconnect between ideology, which he calls “practical politics” or “realpolitik,” and reality, and did so with soldiering as his example:

Whatever starts wars, the thing that sustains wars is something in the soul; that is something akin to religion. It is what men feel about life and about death. A man near to death is dealing directly with an absolute; it is nonsense to say he is concerned only with relative and remote complications that death in any case will end. If he is sustained by certain loyalties, they must be loyalties as simple as death. They are generally two ideas. . . . The first is the love of something said to be threatened, if it be only vaguely known as home; the second is dislike and defiance of some strange thing that threatens it. . . . A man does not want his national home destroyed or even changed, because he cannot even remember all the good things that go with it; just as he does not want his house burnt down, because he can hardly count all the things he would miss. Therefore he fights for what sounds like a hazy abstraction, but is really a house.

This almost exactly describes the approach Mendes and company used for 1917’s depiction of the war. The two protagonists, Schofield and Blake, have intensely immediate concerns—get from here to there safely, avoid being seen or shot at, deliver their message, save lives, get back to their families. They live with the “loyalties as simple as death” and the war is precisely that simple for them. Earlier in the same passage, Chesterton imagines it even more succinctly:

Does anybody in the world believe that a soldier says, “My leg is nearly dropping off, but I shall go on till it drops; for after all I shall enjoy all the advantages of my government obtaining a warm-water port in the Gulf of Finland.” Can anybody suppose that a clerk turned conscript says, “If I am gassed I shall probably die in torments, but it is a comfort to reflect that should I ever decide to become a pearl-diver in the South Seas, that career is now open to me and my countrymen.”

These are manifest absurdities, but are apparently what Slate writers and their ilk want out of a movie like 1917. Tell us how bad the British officer class was. Don’t other the Germans. Don’t “validate the nationalist impulses that led to such terrible bloodshed.” Don’t give us a movie, give us a disquisition. Give us a sermon. Give us a Slate article.

The author of this piece does offer up counterexamples in the form of All Quiet on the Western Front and Paths of Glory, both fine movies, well produced and well acted. But, tellingly, the most political parts of those movies are also the phoniest parts, the most tinny and artistically clumsy, and the strongest parts are those most like what 1917 accomplished, bringing the viewer into the experience of the soldiers in the trenches.

Why does any of this matter? First, because I object to the totalitarian impulse to make everything political. Second, I hate to see this film, an outstanding evocation of a time and place and the experience of an entire generation of ordinary men, denigrated for such stupid and meretricious reasons. Third, and I think most importantly, the nature of art and storytelling, the basis of my first objection, is at stake. Artists and storytellers must be free to tell the stories they have in the way best suited to those stories. They must be true to their art. The team behind 1917 exercised their considerable gifts to tell a good story and tell it well, just like the filmmakers behind All Quiet on the Western Front and Paths of Glory did in their day. They used their gifts to choose their material and to shape it toward their end. What matters after that is whether they succeeded in what they set out to do, not in what pundits think they should have done.

“Poetry is, among other things,” John Ciardi wrote, “the art of knowing what to leave out.” Begin dictating those choices and you kill the work of art.

Shooting at the Stars

Illustration from Shooting at the Stars, by John Hendrix

One of my favorite kids’ Christmas books, one I have delighted to share with my kids since I discovered it a couple of years ago, is Shooting at the Stars, by John Hendrix. This book does not retell the nativity narratives of the Gospels and there is not a manger scene to be found, but the truth of that story pervades this one.

Shooting at the Stars is based on the true story of the Christmas truce of 1914. The First World War was only in its fifth month by December of that year but had already shocked Europe with its destruction and death toll. Hundreds of thousands had been killed in a war that modern technology was supposed to have ended with a quick and humiliating defeat for one’s enemies. Despite these high hopes on all sides, the overwhelming firepower of modern warfare stopped armies—with horrific losses—and forced them down, into the earth. Trench warfare had already arrived and was a settled reality, especially on the Western Front. Then, over a few days at Christmas, impromptu, unofficial ceasefires brought men from both sides into no-man’s-land to chat, exchange gifts, and celebrate the birth of Christ with real peace on earth—peace made only more real and striking by the context.

Hendrix frames his retelling as a letter home from Charlie, a teenage English soldier. Over the first several pages, Charlie describes the miseries of life in the trenches and Hendrix’s clearly well researched illustrations give the boy soldier’s descriptions weight. We see the rain, mud, the standing water that could flood soldiers out of the holes in the trench wall where they could sleep, and the Western Front’s notorious rats. Freezing temperatures come as a relief because the cold makes the ground solid again.

from Shooting at the Stars, by John Hendrix

Then comes the miracle, “a tale so wonderful that you will hardly believe my account!” On Christmas Eve the English hear the Germans singing “Silent Night”—wonderfully rendered as blackletter calligraphy the color of candlelight, hovering over no-man’s-land—and Christmas trees appear all along the German front lines. That leads to a joke shouted over from the German side, a can of jam (mentioned prominently in They Shall Not Grow Old) heaved over from the English side, and two officers from the two warring nations stepping out of their trenches and walking toward one another to meet in the middle. Hendrix, through his careful pacing and his luminous illustrations, makes these officers’ simple handshake a powerfully emotional moment.

The first thing the soldiers do with their truce is to help bury each side’s dead, the numerous unburied corpses being a somber but important fact about the Western Front that Hendrix rightly includes but keeps kid-friendly. From there the soldiers meet, play soccer with a cracker box, take photos together, and exchange souvenirs, humble tokens like buttons and belt buckles—and one wonders at the accidental appropriateness of the German motto struck onto their belt buckles: Gott mit uns, “God with us.”

But the war intrudes again and the truce cannot last. One officer coming up from the rear berates the men in the front lines: “He said we had acted like traitors to Britain—but how could a day of peace be treason?” Hendrix thus subtly but powerfully contrasts the peace that Christ came to bring with the ideologies that possess modern people—in this case, nationalism and militarism, but it could just as easily be any other ism to which we find ourselves committed today.

A friend of mine who read my short Goodreads review a few years ago told me that, as he read Shooting at the Stars with his son, when those first two officers shook hands and Charlie writes that “For one glorious Christmas morning, war had taken a holiday,” his son stopped him and said, “That's wrong. It's more like the holiday took the war away. Right, Dad?” Amen to that.

Well researched, with a good introduction and afterword and a glossary that will be helpful to younger readers, but, more importantly, beautifully written and illustrated, Shooting at the Stars shows what the hope of the incarnation means in a world as broken and destructive as ours. If Christmas can redeem even a few days in the trenches of the Western Front, how much more can the hope born that night in Bethlehem accomplish before he is through? Shooting at the Stars is a must read, a worthwhile addition to your family’s cycle of Christmas stories, and one that makes that truth and that hope all the more real.

Merry Christmas, frohe Weihnachten, and pax in terra.