Lyndal Roper, Summer of Fire and Blood ** 1/2

This history of the Peasant's War in Germany (1524-26) is extremely well researched and provides an abundance of detail about the massive public uprising that occurred just as the Reformation was taking hold. I got a clear sense of the peasant's grievances, the complex interplay of authority among the lords and clergymen, the social forces that led to the rebellion, even the attire of the armies. It's an impressive feat of research given that the events happened 500 years ago and the participants were either illiterate or self-interested.

Unfortunately, though, Roper writes like a sociologist rather than a narrative historian. The book is organized into chronological sections for autumn 1524 through summer 1525, but the individual chapters explore the conflict thematically, exploring concepts like freedom, lordship, and brotherhood. 

One cause for this collapse of authority was the empire's confusing patchwork of different rights and claims. What prevailed was not what we today understand by 'rule.' Rather, it was a kind of negotiated governing that depended on cooperation and, ultimately, comparative strength. Rights and jurisdictions could be bought and sold or even swapped. The buyer of a castle might gain judicial rights associated with it; the tithe of a village could be bought as an investment. ... Because sovereignty was frequently fragmented and not unitary, subjects could sometimes pick their fights and play one authority against another.

The result feels curiously static for a bloody and tragic war story, a description of the "rich detail of [the peasants'] daily lives" not a chronicle of battles. I would be hard pressed to describe the chronology of the conflict or its flashpoints.

The last 10 pages reveal the reason for this academic approach: "Some of the most profound political debates in historical writing of the last two hundred years, and especially over Marxism and its legacies, were fought out on the terrain of the German Peasants' War." Marx and Engels both wrote about it, East and West Germany highlighted different aspects of it, and historians of the Reformation blame it on one or another of the major religious figures. Roper is engaging with the meaning of the conflict more than the tale.

Tony Tulathimutte, Rejection ***

Rejection is a collection of linked stories in which characters fail to understand why their attempts to connect with others lead instead to rejection. For example, the first (and best) story "The Feminist" features a young man who has internalized the tenets of modern feminism but discovers that his less enlightened peers are the ones getting laid.

Tulathimutte describes his characters' thinking in ways both subtle and darkly hilarious, especially in the first couple of stories. He's got the style of online conversations down cold. Unfortunately, though, he doesn't provide any actual story in the sense of narrative or character development. The later stories ramp up the level of postmodernist reflexivity to no great effect.

Rejection reminded me of David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. Both books feature unpleasant people tying themselves into rhetorical knots; they both experiment with writing styles; and they both concern themselves with the failure of self-conscious pluralism to improve our connections with other people. The story "Ahegao" builds to an elaborate, explicit, over-the-top sexual fantasy that wouldn't be out of place in a mid-career Chuck Palahniuk book.

Agnes Callard, Open Socrates ****

Socrates is more renowned for his method than for the content of his philosophy. The Socratic method involves questioning the premises underlying commonly held beliefs in the form of an inquisitive dialogue. Callard argues that the method is the philosophy: Socrates believed that we rarely achieve true knowledge, and that the key to a good life is continuous conversation moving us ever closer to truth.

Open Socrates is an oddly structured book. Collard wants to produce what she calls "an inquisitive text" that simulates Socratic inquiry, which is a difficult, if not impossible, task because Socratic inquiry requires two cooperative interlocutors, one seeking the truth and the other looking to avoid error.

I feel as if I got the flavor of the Socratic dialogues and clarification on common misunderstandings about them. Collard shows how to apply Socrates' techniques to contemporary questions. She successfully creates an inquisitive text if we take that to mean a work that invites the reader into a conversation. I feel like she is on the right track with many of her ideas, but I would need to talk with her to clarify the conclusions she draws from the ideas. For example, the chapter about equality is very insightful about conversational status-seeking but I remain unconvinced about how these insights relate to equality.

The book's subtitle is "The Case for a Philosophical Life," but Collard neglects to argue that a life lived philosophically is better than an incurious one.