I have never read any of Michener's books. I was also warned that, "Mexico" is not one of his better books - not only by friends but from reviews I checked out here on Good reads.That said, I think this is a great book. Moreover, if this is one of his not-so-good reads then, I am definitely picking up "Alaska," "Texas," and "Hawaii."Michener's depth of knowledge is incredible. I have never read anything like it. Since one of my degrees is History with an emphasis on border studies, I found this book completely engaging. It covers Mexican history from pre-columbian times to the early 1950's. To get that kind of historical perspective, you would have to read a history text like Meyer & Sherman's, "The Course of Mexican History."One of the chief complaints regarding Michener's, "Mexico" was that there was a heavy emphasis on Bullfighting which was part of the main story. I do not particularly like anything relating to Bullfighting because the odds are stacked against the bull and regardless of how well he defends himself against the Matador and crew, his fate is sealed; he will die.Regardless, I found the information interesting as it reflected much about the cultural perspectives of Mexico and yields a deeper contextual understanding of Latin American world view which often seems to get lost - especially nowadays as xenophobia abounds in the USA regarding Mexicans.While Michener's scope of knowledge is staggering, I wish he had delved even farther back in history to yield a deeper understanding about bulls and their significance in pre-western culture. Nonetheless, it is beautifully written book. It reveals nuances of Mexican culture which I believe are absolutely essential for we as Norte Americanos to understand.Why? Mexican's are the fastest growing population of American Citizens and their penchant for strong central government, their comparatively high religiosity and appreciation for strong - even dictatorial leaders will most definitely have bearing on future US Leaderships which they and their descendants will influence when they world view by plebiscite.Example: Owing to Ronald Reagan's Amnesty program, there is no denying they helped to elect George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger into office because they shared political alignment and held loyalty to the Republican party. However, their shift in political allegiance has begun to move in the opposite direction owing to the increasing hostility toward Mexicans as isolationist sentiments are on the rise.
I read Mexico awhile ago (c. 2006), but reading down the reviews here on Goodreads refreshed my memory enough to say this: I really enjoyed the book for awhile, but as it wore on I liked it less and less, and I'm pretty sure by the end I thought it was a bit ridiculous in parts. The thing I usually like about his writing is that although fiction he weaves in enough history and cultural truth to make his stories plausible. That style really sucks me into a story line and makes the story come alive. As the story of Mexico unfolded it struck me as unbelievable and more like pure fiction instead of his hallmark style of fiction that seems like non-fiction. Instead of getting sucked into the story I remained on the outside, sometimes saying to myself "Really?" I remember being excited to read this book on the heels of reading Hawaii, which remains to this day to be one of my very favorite books. I also just completed reading The Source this week, which was also an excellent book. I'm glad I gave Michener another try after the Mexico disappointment! That said, I was still glad to have read Mexico as I was getting ready to go to Mexico, and it sufficiently fit the bill of helping me to get in the mood for my trip. Had I known ahead of time that the book wasn't so great I would've done more research to find a better book. Like I mentioned, I was still on a high after reading Hawaii, so that's why I didn't (look into finding better rated books).
What do You think about Mexico (1994)?
This is the weakest Michener I have read. The opposite end of the spectrum from his masterpiece Hawaii. Everything is weaker -- the multi generation sagas, the settings, characters. He uses imaginative Indian peoples and Mexican cities rather than put the research into the real ones and attempts to tie everything together with a bullfight plot line running through the entire tome like it was THE major component of Mexican culture instead of the tiny aspect it now is. It is terribly repetitive and just plain dull. Kingsolver's Lacuna does a much better job of modern Mexican history. Maybe if he had tackled this fascinating and complicated country when he was was in his prime it would have been a better book.
—Diane
How I felt about that book varied from section to section. Ironically, the parts I liked best were the modern (or near modern since they were set in 1961) parts concerning bullfighting, of all things. I have never been interested in the sport, but these parts were so interesting that, paraphrasing what King Agrippa said to the Apostle Paul, "almost thou persuadest me to see a bullfight". BUT King Agrippa never became Christian and I have no intention of seeing a bullfight. Four stars for these parts.The historical sections don't come off nearly as well, in my opinion. The best is concerned with the "Altomec" civilization preceding the conquest by Cortez. Altomec, by the way, is a term Michener uses for a composite of various tribes. Maybe this was to excuse himself from more extensive research. The part set in Spain wasn't bad and the part concerning early Spaniards in Mexico was also okay. I was not impressed by the part set in Virginia during the Civil War. After reading Michener's account, a reader might assume that the battle of Cold Harbor was fought in The Wilderness. I did like the part about unreconstructed Confederates heading for Mexico. I've read better novelizations of history. Two or maybe three stars for these parts.
—Bonnie
WORST BOOK EVER!!!!! I read this book years ago and I still cannot find the words to describe how absolutely disappointed I was and stil am with it. I read previous books like Chesapeake Bay, Alaska so I was really excited about Mexico but OMG it was awful. I don't know if he really wrote it or if he gave the task to somebody else but the truth is they invented 98% of it. I can understand if you write a fiction book, that you will make up almost everything, however if you are going to write about a country as rich in its culture and history as Mexico, for sure you have to first study it and make sure you know what you are talking about. Michener showed a total ignorance and disrespect of the traditions and great culture of such a wonderful country as Mexico. I have never read another book of him... what for?
—Cristina
