If Zweig is really Pepsi, who is the “real thing”? Zweig is no copy, no cheap version. He developed and mined two niches of his own: For his female readers, novels and short stories about caged women in psychological distress (mirroring Zweig’s in the closet/bisexual situation). For his male readers, biographies about pathbreakers, writers, scientists and politicians with a twist. Each biography mirrors part of Zweig and his time, e.g. Zweig disguised as non-violent, accomodating Erasmus vs the meaty Luther. Zweig’s account of Joseph Fouché, eminence grise and survivor of all the French Revolution, the Empire and the Restoration, is a treat for political junkies. The World Of Yesterday is still one of the finest tributes to the Habsburg Empire.

Zweig is a smooth (no Dan Brown, he), sometimes a bit flowery writer – is readability really a flaw? Is it really wrong to outsource grammar and spell-checking? In fact, this is the key to Zweig’s productivity and readability. Delegating and accepting peer review prevents brilliant trainwrecks such as Musil’s Men without Qualities. Shouldn’t a writer not only be published but also read?

Contemporary critics were mostly jealous about the commercial and public success of filthy rich kid Zweig. They sound like GM execs talking about Japanese cars. Instead of learning about Zweig’s processes, they hold their own non-performing struggles dear.

The review also disregards Zweig’s tireless labor of love of translating and promoting other and lesser known writers. Overall, concentrating on Zweig’s weaknesses and neglecting his strengths does not do justice to the man and his work.