What might also be the fault of abridgement is my big complaint: the narrative almost completely lacked flow until about halfway through. I really like this period in history, and even I had a hard time following the story and staying interested. I can only imagine how dry it must seem to someone who isn't so taken with the revolutionaries. This may or may not be a fault of the author; it might be bad writing (and editing), or it might just be poor abridgement. Either way, it was frustrating.
Eventually, the story does pick up and start to move in a linear and understandable fashion, and from that point on it was enjoyable.
The author also makes some obvious but refreshing observations about the time in general. I love looking back on the revolutionary period, because all the main players were such Renaissance men - interested (and capable! and successful!) in fields of science, politics, literature, even agriculture. Because such huge advances were being made in technology at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, new areas of study were accessible to anyone with the funds to get involved. New fields were ripe for discovery, innovation, and development in a way that they no longer are. Then, a man such as Joseph Priestley who was willing to commit himself to some serious study could make numerous significant discoveries in multiple fields. Now, to make a groundbreaking discovery in chemistry or physics, you have to dedicate your life to it, and even then the chances of making such a discovery are slim. It was a more elemental time, full of possibilities in a whole different way than what we know now.
So, all in all, I'd say the second half was enjoyable, and for the most part could have been appreciated without the first part.
No comments:
Post a Comment