User Profile

This was most interesting to me as a study of leadership style. I see micromanagement as a character flaw, but Roberts argues that Napoleon could often focus on insignificant details and still get major things done. I’m not sure if it’s in spite of, or because of. Napoleon’s relationship with common soldiers was also very interesting, he seemed to strike just the right balance of relatability and distance to inspire fierce loyalty.

Assessing Napoleon as a ruler, there’s some contradiction between deep social conservativism and desire to move the country forward. The Napoleonic Code, as an example, was a progressive reform that set France’s legal system on a more modern rationalist course. At the same time, it centralized power and brought things more under his direct control.

I found myself wondering sometimes what things were like for the common soldier, and how you would hype yourself up to fight the Austrians for like the fifth time over territory you’d repeatedly traded back and forth. Roberts clearly admires Napoleon, and when you read a book like this you have to guard yourself against the impulse to see rulers at the protagonist of history. The reader needs to be aware to refocus when necessary on how all of this affected ordinary people, both in France and the countries Napoleon warred with.

I noted the line that Napoleon’s base of support was “landlords, tradesmen, and the better-off peasantry”. In other words, the Revolutionary Era equivalent of people who own car dealerships. Sound familiar?

The weaker part of the book was the battle descriptions. This has never been a particular interest of mine, so it takes an extraordinary author to get me interested in these, and it didn’t happen here. I read through this quickly, probably not absorbing as much as I should have, and it seems to me that players dropped in and out of the narrative randomly.

In works of fiction I’ll often pick favorites among secondary characters, so two “characters” I rooted for here, although that’s an admittedly strange thing to do in a history book:

Jean Bernadotte – Bernadotte married Napoleon’s first love who rejected him, and was part of Napoleon’s extended family. As a consequence Napoleon apparently kind of hated him. Bernadotte was a Marshal, but Napoleon gave him all the worst duties and no credit, in a way that kind of seemed like bullying. Eventually, Bernadotte became the King of Sweden and IMMEDIATELY betrayed Napoleon, which is a hilarious reversal. Bernadotte’s descendants are still the monarchs of Sweden.

Louis-Nicolas Davout – I liked this guy just because he was the most competent and independent of Napoleon’s marshals, but was chronically underused because he didn’t click with Napoleon personally. I guess we’ve all had a bad boss. Davout also survived the Napoleonic Wars and made his peace with the King.

I read this in preparation for the Ridley Scott film which I understand plays up the Napoleon/Josephine romance a lot more. Roberts doesn’t think very much of that part of Napoleon’s life and de-emphasizes it.

What struck me most was that I had to read this in a different way than I ordinarily read. Ordinarily reading for me is relaxing, flowing and almost dissociative, here I felt like I had to engage my full attention and engage carefully with each sentence. I had to go slow, frequently re-read, and look up concepts, as if I were back in college.

I read this way because the sentences were very dense. Belcourt is a poet who writes like a poet, and he shows an admirable trust in his readers to pick up oblique, multilayered concepts without a lot of hand-holding. I'm not sure what it means that the book was most direct when talking about sex. The most difficult part to me was teasing out what was uniquely NDN and what was just the general human experience.

The major theme was joy and utopia as a reaction to and rejection of oppression, while at the same time seeming to quietly acknowledge that utopia (which after all means "nowhere") wasn't really reachable. I feel like this is in the same neighborhoold as Camus-like absurdism, but I need time and thought to really put them together.

Where I hesitate with this is an issue less an issue with the book, and more an issue with the whole theoretical enterprise. The conclusions are deeply considered and beautifully argued, but if someone came to the opposite conclusion, how would we decide the truth? Belcourt talks about the Colten Boushie case in Saskatchewan, and the way he sees it as an injustice, but doesn't talk about what happened afterwards. Boushie's family successfully lobbied for major changes to the jury system. Is that meaningful to Belcourt, or is it just "liberal empathy" or rearranging deck chairs? I can guess, but I don't know for sure what he'd say. I understand it's not his job or his intention in writing this, but it butts up at against the limitations of the chosen form.