When social book reviewers get it wrong — wronger than the book

I just recently finished "The Bright Ages," which as you might guess, is a claim that the Middle Ages weren't all the Dark Ages. Between bad framing, narrow focus and outright errors, I knew halfway through that it probably wasn't even a 3-star book and the question was (since no half-stars from Goodreads after its self-vaunted [can others vaunt you?] website overhaul) was whether it would even hold 2 stars.

It doesn't, and shall also get only 1 even on Storygraph.

That said, what's funny, or more, "funny" with scare quotes, is the preconceptional whiffs of other 1-star reviewers, and a few 2-starrers.

A full one-quarter go full wingnut/Trumpy on their reviews, talking about "woke" presentation of women at this time and more.

And, almost as many of the reviewers on the "other side" (there's more than two sides by far here, per Idries Shah and as I shall show) actually exemplify "woke" (in the wrongful sense) attitudes, using words like "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining" in their takes.

It's neither. And I knew that before I checked it out from the library.

It's Catholic apologetics, or Catholic-splaining to use a modernized mash-up.  And, not getting that is why both the Trumpys and the Wokeys blew it. And, it's Catholic-splaining with a twist. Per a Google, after coming across this Medium piece which was a rejected form of an LARB of the book, David Perry is Jewish. Could have fooled me. The book still reeks of Catholic apologetics. That said, having seen this person's Twitter feed on it, no, the LARB editors were right in rejecting the original. The reviewer seems engaged in check-marking appropriate boxes, like calling out Gabriele and Perry for not mentioning "trans and queer folk," yet, since he has the option of doing so himself on Medium, not doing so! And, his review has other problems. It references "African Europeans," whose book website says: "As early as the third century, St Maurice—an Egyptian—became leader of the legendary Roman Theban Legion." Yes, true, but you couldn't have gone "up the ladder" to Emperor Septimius Severus? There's also the issue that both St. Maurice (patron saint of the HRE, namesake of St. Moritz) and the the Theban Legion are fictional.

That said, while the book is largely pabulum, it’s NOT pabulum for the reasons Trumpy 1-star reviews claim. (The wrongfully woke are closer to the mark, bad narratives and framing aside.) And, yes, their reviews reek of it, even as they ignore the reeking above because it doesn’t fit THEIR narratives. That then said, the portion of 1-starrers that call it out for "mansplaining" also miss the boat, though not quite as bad as the Trump-splainer types.

What follows is a selected version of my review.

The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe by Matthew Gabriele
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Brights book …. Flip side of Dennett’s Brights, it comes off as being!!! But, no historian has called all of the Middle Ages the Dark Ages. That said, if we look at the remains of the Western Roman Empire, the period 843-962, from the end of the Carolingian realm to the start of the HRE, could honestly merit the moniker. Those dates being the Treaty of Verdun ending the unitary Carolingian lands, then the start of the HRE.

So, yes, from the start, we’re going to be in the lands of strawmanning and cherry-picking. And, all in the service of Catholicism. And, yes, it still seems that way. To me, the whole book reeks of the Catholicism of its authors. While a modern evangelical half of fundagelical Protestants might have written a book like this, a traditional Lutheran, Calvinist or practitioner of Orthodoxy would not, nor would have a secular historian. And, yes, the word “reek” is deliberate. And, yes, it still seems that way.

Interesting to see Myth of Martyrdom author Candida Moss blurb it when the intro talks about a bunch of Catholic saintly martyrdoms that likely didn’t happen. (Sidebar: As people in the book publishing world, or familiar with it, know, this exemplifies one or both of two things. First is, that unless specifically barred from doing so in some way, marketing staff often take blurb comments out of context. Second is that blurbers often don't read the full book.) Those claims start, chronologically, in this book, with Peter in Rome, which certainly never happened.

Then, there’s other fun stuff, like the claim that the Western Roman Empire didn’t end when Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus. Oh, yes it did. And, yes, Rome became a sinkhole of population and other decline that was nowhere close to fully replaced.

Then, the claim in a chapter on Charlemagne that the HRE didn’t come until the later 12th century, not 962. Yes, the “sacrum” in Latin didn’t attach until Barbarossa, but any history book will tell you it began with Otto the Saxon.

Then, in the chapter on Vikings, I learned the Dneiper and Volga rivers are in western Asia! Neat! I halfway seriously wonder if this was a deliberate take, to de-Europeanize either Russia or Orthodox Christianity. Given that Slavic lands are nowhere further discussed, nor are details of the rise of Kievan Rus, I’m sure it’s deliberate.

There’s also a weird, and AFAIK, totally untrue claim that the Khazars later became Muslim. (I personally believe the bulk, tho not all, after the fall of the Khanate went on to become PART of Azhkenazi Jews. This is not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, contra the likes of Wikipedia, in one of its more iffy entries. The Ashkenazi/Sephardi split is itself a linguistic one, not an ethnic or sub-ethnic one, after all. And, I don't give a fuck if David Perry his own self sees this part. It's true.

First Crusade chapter overlooks cannibalism at the Siege of Ma’arra. Besides the cannibalism, the intolerance of Frankish surrender terms go unnoted. BUT, the authors DO engage in a nice bit of “presentism.” As in, a LOT of it.

Petrarch as in inventor of the idea of Renaissance is mentioned, mainly a an object of polite opprobrium. The earlier 12th-century Renaissance is mentioned in passing.

Weirdly NOT mentioned by two Catholic authors a Catholic author and a fellow traveler is previous reformations before THE Reformation. These surely would have fit the “bright ages” idea.

So, too, would the conversion of the last portions of Europe, the Balto-Finnic lands. Not mentioned.

Other one-star reviews go into more depth. Several go into Trump-splaining, with their takes perhaps even worse than this book.

View all my reviews

Sidebar: Not sure whether the bigger time-waster was this book or the Medium review.