Book Tracker

It is difficult to summarize the key insights of this book in a short paragraph. I would say that the best thing this book does is justify to oneself that the actions used to obtain power and the study of what those actions are, is a virtuous thing to partake in--or at least not an unvirtuous thing.

Here are some of Machievelli's words on this:

"A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good."

"For there is such a distance between how one lives and how one ought to live, that anyone who abandons what is done for what is ought to be done achieves his downfall rather than his preservation." (Page 53)

I believe what Machievelli is saying is about prudence. It is quite easy to believe that the world is virtuous, that it is wicked, or that it is arbitrary and random. The truth, in the way that I believe Machievelli is saying, is that none of these things are true on their own. The world is the way that it is through the acts of great (and many not so great) men in conjunction with Lady Fortune. Those deeds are about power. And understanding them is of use for anyone, both those who want to lead principalities, and those who have no ambitions to do so. For one to act with prudence, one must therefore understand this.

I think this is the first "self help" book I've read. Or actually, I listened to this one. I quite liked it. I think Goggins' story and general life philosophy is quite inspiring. I can always work harder and do more.

It's clear that it deserves the acclaim it gets, yet I didn't like it that much.

The jumping haziness of Kath's narration was a bit difficult at first, but over time I realized that probably out of any book, it has the monologue most similar to what goes on inside my head. And overall, I came to like the writing style. There is something very understated about the way Ishiguro writes; the narration is conversational but there were never any extra words. He never made you feel that the world was more complicated than it really was. The camera never zoomed out to show you the horror, but you knew it was there. There is a calmness to his writing that makes it really easy to get lost in, despite how horrifying the setting is.

The whole time though, I was waiting for some twist or some awakening of agency that would allow the characters to escape their fate. Perhaps not physically but at least mentally. Instead they receive the bad news after years of senseless toil, and they just let themselves die. It's rather uninspiring in that regard. Though perhaps that was the whole point. They are so doomed that they never even think about what they could do. Whereas in most stories, we are conditioned to think that the characters will eventually wake up to their conditions and do something. We are always waiting for some twist. Though it never comes. k

That was what I didn't really like. Things never tied up at the end. There's no heroes journy, only a long gentle horror as the story comes to an end, where you can only imagine countless others in similar situations still living in the same way, with no hope in sight. I tend to prefer books with some kind of productive conclusion. For this book that never came. I understand that was the whole point. But nontheless I don't like it.

It is quite amazing how far humans can suffer. But I believe not in isolation. If they had a weak leader. Or if their personalities didn't mesh well enough to get along. Or if the conditions were slightly worse. Then they would have likely not made it.

One of the most crucial reasons for their survival then was Shakleton's cognizance of how his men were feeling, and very deliberately organizing certain combinations of men in order for their interaction to not destroy each other. For example, in his choices of who would stay and who would go as part of his land crossing of South Georgia, he chose McNeish and Vincent partly because if they were to be left behind, then they would undermine the morale of the men with them. He wouldn't make greedy choices to make his journey the easiest, instead he would choose based on what would be best even for the people being left behind.

I think it is also worth mentioning that the men showed unbelievable obedience, and therefore trust, towards Shakleton. For the most part all orders were followed with little complaining, even when the conditions were most disagreeable. When I recall the difficult physical journeys I have taken part of (nothing close to this though), they were full of complaining throughout, and many chores simply never got done. I am aware that this aspect of their experience could have not been in the book, but either way, on aggregate, it seems that if you let complaining, and more dangerously lack of discipline in action, take ahold a group, then they will not be successful. There is a fine line between comraderie, and a negative shift in mindset that can destroy the entire group. As a leader it was crucial for Shakleton to not let this shift happen.