Status
Available
Genres
Publication
New York : Penguin Press, 2012.
Description
History. Nonfiction. HTML: An unprecedented and original history of intellectual life throughout the past century Thinking the Twentieth Century is the final book of unparalleled historian and indomitable public critic Tony Judt. Where Judt's masterpiece Postwar redefined the history of modern Europe by uniting the stories of its eastern and western halves, Thinking the Twentieth Century unites the century's conflicted intellectual history into a single soaring narrative. The twentieth century comes to life as the age of ideas�??a time when, for good or for ill, the thoughts of the few reigned over the lives of the many. Judt presents the triumphs and the failures of public intellectuals, adeptly extracting the essence of their ideas and explaining the risks of their involvement in politics. Spanning the entire era and all currents of thought in a manner never previously attempted, Thinking the Twentieth Century is a triumphant tour de force that restores clarity to the classics of modern thought with the assurance and grace of a master craftsman. The exceptional nature of this work is evident in its very structure�??a series of luminous conversations between Judt and his friend and fellow historian Timothy Snyder, grounded in the texts of their trade and focused by the intensity of their vision. Judt's astounding eloquence and range of reference are here on display as never before. Traversing the century's complexities with ease, he and Snyder revive both thoughts and thinkers, guiding us through the debates that made our world. As forgotten treasures are unearthed and overrated thinkers are dismantled, the shape of a century emerges. Judt and Snyder make us partners in their project as we learn the ways to think like a historian or even like a public intellectual. We begin to experience the power of historical perspective for the critique and reform of society and for the pursuit of the good and the true from day to day. In restoring, and indeed exemplifying, the best of the intellectual life of the twentieth century, Thinking the Twentieth Century charts a pathway for moral life in the twenty-first. An incredible achievement, this book is about the life of the mind�??and about the mindful l… (more)
Media reviews
Library Journal
"Not only academics and fans of Judt, but also those who enjoy the New York Review of Books and The New Yorker will flock to read it. Highly recommended."
User reviews
LibraryThing member Illiniguy71
Written as Tim Snyder interviewing Tony Judt, this is the latter's informal analysis of the most important trends of twentieth-century Western intellectual history. It is also a plea for Judt's political philosophy in support of well regulated capitalism with strong social welfare programs--the
Show More
programs of most European social democrats. The depth of learning, breadth of analysis, economic and moral seriousness, and sophistication of view exhibited by both Judt and Snyder left me in awe. How lucky we are that Snyder was able to capture such superb insights from the dying Tony Judt. Show Less
LibraryThing member beabatllori
Babelia's Book of the Year (2012)
LibraryThing member HadriantheBlind
This is a dense, yet conversational view of the history of the 20th century and the modern world. Judt relates a personal story of his childhood and early life, and then uses this as a background for a broad historical view of the circumstances which shaped and defined modern Europe. Snyder, a fine
These include the actions and reactions of various radical ideologies (Fascism, communism, their differences), the motivations and analysis of various political and economic thinkers (Keynes, Hayek, Lenin), and reactions and descriptions of events as they happened. They cover a lot, and with great detail. The state of Israel, the Hungarian Uprising, Vietnam, a proto-Fascism developing in the United States, and so forth.
I was surprised and saddened to hear that Judt passed away in 2010. I was dazzled by Postwar, his history of Europe post-1945, and was completely unaware of the news. It's heartening, though, to have his legacy go on, and men like Snyder who will come after.
Show More
historian in his own right, acts as a good counterpoint in this dialogue.These include the actions and reactions of various radical ideologies (Fascism, communism, their differences), the motivations and analysis of various political and economic thinkers (Keynes, Hayek, Lenin), and reactions and descriptions of events as they happened. They cover a lot, and with great detail. The state of Israel, the Hungarian Uprising, Vietnam, a proto-Fascism developing in the United States, and so forth.
I was surprised and saddened to hear that Judt passed away in 2010. I was dazzled by Postwar, his history of Europe post-1945, and was completely unaware of the news. It's heartening, though, to have his legacy go on, and men like Snyder who will come after.
Show Less
LibraryThing member 4bonasa
A pleasant journey through the delusional world of the intellectual mind, replete with straw men, ad hominem attacks, and hackneyed economic theory. A good case of Bush Derangement Syndrome adds a bit of humor to an otherwise waste of reading time.
LibraryThing member gregorybrown
Before his death from ALS, Tony Judt unexpectedly blossomed into an intellectual titan: penning a history of post-WWII Europe, writing essays for the New York Review of Books, and collecting reminiscences of his lifetime. And just as luckily for us, all of those found print—Europe in the
Yet Thinking the Twentieth Century is an altogether stranger beast: Judt's last work, which by necessity took the form of a conversation between himself and fellow-historian Timothy Snyder. Interspersed with Judt's own remembrances of his personal/professional trajectory and other topics, he and Snyder begin to trace how exactly liberalism won out over totalitarianism—first in the form of fascism, and then in the long grind against communism. This victory was by no means assured, and seemed impossible at points in the 30s and 40s. Yet it happened, and they tease out how exactly that victory was won.
It's not a book for everyone to be sure, and you'd be better-served tackling one of Judt's other more traditional works first. But it's a marvelous chronicle of a mind at work, and sadly the last one we'll get.
Show More
critically-acclaimed Postwar, his last essays in Ill Fares the Land, and his memoir in The Memory Chalet. Yet Thinking the Twentieth Century is an altogether stranger beast: Judt's last work, which by necessity took the form of a conversation between himself and fellow-historian Timothy Snyder. Interspersed with Judt's own remembrances of his personal/professional trajectory and other topics, he and Snyder begin to trace how exactly liberalism won out over totalitarianism—first in the form of fascism, and then in the long grind against communism. This victory was by no means assured, and seemed impossible at points in the 30s and 40s. Yet it happened, and they tease out how exactly that victory was won.
It's not a book for everyone to be sure, and you'd be better-served tackling one of Judt's other more traditional works first. But it's a marvelous chronicle of a mind at work, and sadly the last one we'll get.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jonfaith
Rigging the past is the oldest form of knowledge control: If you have power over the interpretation of what went before (or can simply lie about it), the present and the future are at your disposal. So it is simple democratic prudence to ensure that the citizenry are historically informed.
This sort
Judt reflects evenly on ideology and trends in social thought. He articulates nicely the tension between civic responsibility and moral responsibility. He doesn't believe that books will correct much. The people who read them already agree with the author. There is no chance of influence. Strangely enough, he endorses investigative journalists with responsibility of social change. Not by themselves but it is their efforts which can sway a somnambulist world view. Provided of course that core education hasn't eroded completely by that point. Following the pedagogic thread, he is more aligned with a conservative, research driven history than its hyphenated ilk. I found his thoughts on such fascinating.
This sort
Show More
of text defies a review. Being a recorded and transcribed conversation, it requests a similar treatment. The nature of the book is that Tony Judt facing ALS was physically unable to write and instead enlisted the support of Timothy Snyder for a series of conversations comprising an intellectual history of 20th Century Europe and the U.S. Bracketing these exchanges are Judt's autobiographical ruminations on childhood and academia, his immersion in both Zionism and Leftist studies and his unexpected arrival somewhere outside that trajectory. This book was essentially thrust into my hands last weekend. I had went to visit my friend Harold who runs a book stall at the monthly hipster flea market. We began discussing Žižek and before long it was on to corporations moving to the Balkans and "right to work" states. Heidegger's ontological theology gave way to bullshit post-humanism and why I, jon faith, should be reading the lectures of Foucault. That last point resonated. Drawing attention back to Judt's book, there is something to be said for conversation the point therof, not simply the wagging of lips. I am not of the mind that regards discussion as Hegelian, that somehow synthesis is achieved, but I still enjoy the crackle and contemplation of such exchanges. Judt reflects evenly on ideology and trends in social thought. He articulates nicely the tension between civic responsibility and moral responsibility. He doesn't believe that books will correct much. The people who read them already agree with the author. There is no chance of influence. Strangely enough, he endorses investigative journalists with responsibility of social change. Not by themselves but it is their efforts which can sway a somnambulist world view. Provided of course that core education hasn't eroded completely by that point. Following the pedagogic thread, he is more aligned with a conservative, research driven history than its hyphenated ilk. I found his thoughts on such fascinating.
Show Less
LibraryThing member stillatim
A very odd book for any number of reasons. The greatest cause of oddity is Timothy Snyder, who interviews Judt and edits his responses, while putting in a few words of his own, either when he has a particularly good thought, or when Judt's words need context. The oddness comes from the first third
The next cause of oddity is Snyder's bizarre beliefs i) that 'democracy' in the United States was destroyed by Bush v. Gore, as if a president being elected even though (I exaggerate for effect) 10% of the population voted for him, whereas 10.1% usually vote for presidents; ii) that the war in Iraq is somehow a treasonous rejection of everything that America stands for, rather than, say, business as usual. Anyway, Snyder is incapable of seeing his own time objectively; Judt is much better at that.
Third, you get Judt's own slightly ridiculous self-glamorization as an outsider in the historiographical world--which ramps up, unexpectedly, *right when he's being made chairman of his history department and setting up his own little research establishment.* Some of Judt's points about the history profession, and academic life in general, are perfectly accurate; I'd be more impressed if he'd acknowledged how he benefited from the very life he's criticizing.
And fourth, the differences between Snyder, an American liberal, and Judt, an ex-pat social democrat, play out very strangely. Watching the two of them discuss communism, socialism, the histories of those movements, and their relationship to contemporary politics is fascinating, but both seem to someone my age to be marked a bit too strongly with Cold War prejudices--Snyder particularly, but also Judt when he's in Isiah Berlin mode--against, you know, trying to make the world better. This clashes rather brutally with their repeated assertions that the free market isn't free, or all that good at making human life bearable. A little less skepticism towards changing the world would have been nice.
On the other hand, all of these oddities get softened occasionally, as when Judt suggests that democracy is neither sufficient nor necessary for a good, open society.
One final note: this is not an introduction to twentieth century history, intellectual or otherwise, and if you don't know much about it, I'm not sure you'll get much from the book. I'm sure I failed to understand plenty of allusions.
Show More
of the book, in which Judt repeatedly tells Snyder that being half Jewish isn't that important to him, and that Jewish history isn't that important when thinking about world affairs... and Snyder repeatedly asks Judt to talk about being half Jewish and the importance of Jewish history in world affairs. A friend suggests to me that this might be Snyder trying to clear his own name; recently, at least, he's been the target of anti-anti-semitism, because he had the temerity to point out that a lot of people died in Eastern Europe who weren't Jewish. The next cause of oddity is Snyder's bizarre beliefs i) that 'democracy' in the United States was destroyed by Bush v. Gore, as if a president being elected even though (I exaggerate for effect) 10% of the population voted for him, whereas 10.1% usually vote for presidents; ii) that the war in Iraq is somehow a treasonous rejection of everything that America stands for, rather than, say, business as usual. Anyway, Snyder is incapable of seeing his own time objectively; Judt is much better at that.
Third, you get Judt's own slightly ridiculous self-glamorization as an outsider in the historiographical world--which ramps up, unexpectedly, *right when he's being made chairman of his history department and setting up his own little research establishment.* Some of Judt's points about the history profession, and academic life in general, are perfectly accurate; I'd be more impressed if he'd acknowledged how he benefited from the very life he's criticizing.
And fourth, the differences between Snyder, an American liberal, and Judt, an ex-pat social democrat, play out very strangely. Watching the two of them discuss communism, socialism, the histories of those movements, and their relationship to contemporary politics is fascinating, but both seem to someone my age to be marked a bit too strongly with Cold War prejudices--Snyder particularly, but also Judt when he's in Isiah Berlin mode--against, you know, trying to make the world better. This clashes rather brutally with their repeated assertions that the free market isn't free, or all that good at making human life bearable. A little less skepticism towards changing the world would have been nice.
On the other hand, all of these oddities get softened occasionally, as when Judt suggests that democracy is neither sufficient nor necessary for a good, open society.
One final note: this is not an introduction to twentieth century history, intellectual or otherwise, and if you don't know much about it, I'm not sure you'll get much from the book. I'm sure I failed to understand plenty of allusions.
Show Less