A very worthy project, but Burgis tries to tell too many stories, and doesn't give anywhere near enough context or analysis to make it grippy. A very worthy project, but Burgis tries to tell too many stories, and doesn't give anywhere near enough context or analysis to make it grippy. ...more
First class first-draft of history. No doubt much of this will turn out to be irrelevant, wrong, or misleading, but it's better than anyone else is doFirst class first-draft of history. No doubt much of this will turn out to be irrelevant, wrong, or misleading, but it's better than anyone else is doing. ...more
How can we explain the surge in economic productivity in England during the 19th century? Well, let's assume, first of all, that imperialism, 'free' tHow can we explain the surge in economic productivity in England during the 19th century? Well, let's assume, first of all, that imperialism, 'free' trade, colonization, war, slavery, government investment, public debt, and so on all have nothing to do with it. Then, as Clark shows here, we're left with only one possibility: good genes! Rich people had more kids in England, and they were rich because they had good genes!
Okay, that problem's solved. Nothing else to see here. My grandparents were all English, so me and my kids will always be hard workers and therefore economically productive. ...more
I was fooled by the subtitle--good saleswork, Viking. This isn't an economic history of the world at all; it's a few essays on vaguely linked topics tI was fooled by the subtitle--good saleswork, Viking. This isn't an economic history of the world at all; it's a few essays on vaguely linked topics that, at worst, want to absolve bad people and bad policies in the rich world for the economic suffering of people the poor world. If only the global south would make wiser policy decisions, everything would be okay! Beattie's heart is in the right place, but I don't think the same can be said for his arguments. ...more
You can't destroy the master's house with the master's tools; you can't write about plutocrats properly if (they think, or you think) they're your friYou can't destroy the master's house with the master's tools; you can't write about plutocrats properly if (they think, or you think) they're your friends. ...more
Not perfect, but pretty close. If only Fawcett wasn't so into both-sidesing when it comes to the left (liberalism is holding the fort against the fascNot perfect, but pretty close. If only Fawcett wasn't so into both-sidesing when it comes to the left (liberalism is holding the fort against the fascists on both sides, don't you know), and necessary balance when it comes to the right (Weimar might have survived if only the liberals and leftists hadn't been so extreme). ...more
I really enjoyed this. It's not really about the philosophy of science--rather, it's about philosophy of science for ordinary people. You get the bit I really enjoyed this. It's not really about the philosophy of science--rather, it's about philosophy of science for ordinary people. You get the bit names (Popper, Kuhn), and the big issues, but then you get case studies, in which Lewens shows us how to think about scientific controversies and ideas, rather than abstractly asking 'what is science?', which is perhaps a fool's errand. I'm obliged to get grumpy about the last chapter, which takes 'scientific' experimental 'disproof' of free will far too seriously. You can't disprove it. Can't prove it either. Somewhere, Kant weeps. ...more
This was okay--short, at least, and moderately organized. But there are better books on the topic out there, and I suspect that Rosenthal got the bookThis was okay--short, at least, and moderately organized. But there are better books on the topic out there, and I suspect that Rosenthal got the book contract because of his position at a research center, rather than his skill as an author. Caveas. My latin might not be the best. ...more
A good project, not so well carried out. Other reviewers have explained more in some detail, but it's worth mentioning two things: first, the writing A good project, not so well carried out. Other reviewers have explained more in some detail, but it's worth mentioning two things: first, the writing about music is atrocious (bands are forever 'tearing' through songs, but for the most part, you wouldn't know they were playing music, rather than doing slam poetry), and second, there is way, way, way too much detail, with nowhere near enough contextualization or explanation. Bands form, record, break up, change styles, and so on, but the authors only *think* about the obvious high points; everything else is recorded, rather than reflected on. That's a great service, and this must have been a beast of a thing to wrap up, but good lord what I wouldn't give for a summary and analysis, rather than yet more quoteage. ...more
You're not reading this if you're not into *some* kind of post-rock, and if you are, you'll really, really want this book to succeed, and might be temYou're not reading this if you're not into *some* kind of post-rock, and if you are, you'll really, really want this book to succeed, and might be tempted to overlook it's many, many, many flaws, as some of the really good reviews of it do here on GR. The focus here is really more on British, proggy post-punk, and a bunch of bands that, frankly, don't sound very interesting from the descriptions, and/or that I can confirm from recordings do not sound interesting at all. Okay, I can cope with that--the author is/lives in England, and has a different perspective. But it's pretty clear that this book is organized according to who spoke to Jeanette Leech for the longest, which isn't a great way to write a book of cultural history.
And then there's the actual writing, which is more a recording: why do so many books on music just quote musicians verbatim? If you were writing a book about novelists, would you just record them playing the piano? No. The musicians interviewed here are occasionally interesting, sure, but there's way too much "Then Billy asked if we could have icecream in the rider and Jenny said no she didn't want icecream in the rider for some reason I forget and then Billy said okay but compromise is fair so let's have instant pudding at least and Jenny said okay even though instant pudding has dairy in it just like icecream so I guess maybe it was that icecream was too cold." That's not a direct quote, but it's what I *felt* like I was reading.
Someone needs to issue a manifesto for writers on popular music, to the effect that readers would like to actually learn something interesting, rather than trawl through undigested interviews. ...more
Not bad--not great, but that's because the subject matter isn't quite as good as, say, Genesis or the Book of Common Prayer, other subjects of the serNot bad--not great, but that's because the subject matter isn't quite as good as, say, Genesis or the Book of Common Prayer, other subjects of the series. I learned quite a lot, but unfortunately Marsden was dealt a difficult hand. Another reviewer criticizes him for giving too much time to nay-sayers. I think he doesn't take them seriously enough; often we're told that 'theologians' disagree with Lewis, but don't get much detail about the disagreement. I would have liked that detail.
In other news, I just read The Lion... with my daughter. She liked it okay, but boy, the symbolism really flew over my head when I was a kid, and now I know a bit more about Lewis himself, I'm glad it did. ...more
Carlos Eire strikes me as the kind of guy who thinks that copping criticism from 'both sides' means you're right, so he'll be glad to see that a previCarlos Eire strikes me as the kind of guy who thinks that copping criticism from 'both sides' means you're right, so he'll be glad to see that a previous reviewer criticizes him for claiming Teresa is a queer messiah, and I'll be criticizing him for pretty much the opposite. This is... not a great book, just much harder to get through than most entries in this series, and largely because Eire is not, as the previous reviewer seems to believe, part of the Deep State out to undermine all that is good and holy, but because Eire is a pretty conservative, pretty diligent scholar, writing about the exact opposite of a conservative, diligent scholar. Teresa really needs someone with a bit more fire in the belly, I think, although credit where it's due, Eire really does seem to try to read the people he disagrees with, like Kristeva. ...more
A worthy project on an exciting topic, but not exactly well carried out. Even leaving aside the unreconstructedness ('Lenin loved the peasantry! What A worthy project on an exciting topic, but not exactly well carried out. Even leaving aside the unreconstructedness ('Lenin loved the peasantry! What or who were the SRs, anyway?'), Gonzalez isn't exactly winning anyone's trust as an author. Try this on for size:
"revolution... is above all an action born of consciousness, but consciousness itself is not a mere reflection of the material world." Thus, Gonzalez. Here's the end of the quote from Mariategui that he holds up as evidence of this claim: "the ideal is nothing other than the material world reflected by the human mind" (198). Gonzalez might be right that Mariategui didn't hold to Lenin's 'copy theory,' but you can't prove something by quoting something that at least implies the opposite. ...more
This was... okay. I'd rather read Duffy's book on the popes again, and I'd rather read O'Malley's books on the councils again. But this is a quick reaThis was... okay. I'd rather read Duffy's book on the popes again, and I'd rather read O'Malley's books on the councils again. But this is a quick read. ...more
Well-written group biography is always a treat, because group biographers just can't write 800 pages on each member of the group, so you avoid the infWell-written group biography is always a treat, because group biographers just can't write 800 pages on each member of the group, so you avoid the infinite tedium of so much biography. Also, this is beautifully written, on an important topic, engaging subjects, and is also intellectually respectable. Lipscomb not only makes the case for the women of his title (not a hard case to make), but also for the men they were mentored by and argued with, like MacKinnon and Hare. The kind of book that makes you want to read a bunch of other books--always a good thing. ...more
The ideas are what they are (i.e., better than most orthodox Marxists, but still unfortunately dogmatic in many respects). The man is fascinating. TheThe ideas are what they are (i.e., better than most orthodox Marxists, but still unfortunately dogmatic in many respects). The man is fascinating. The edition is very well put together. ...more
Very enjoyable, if perhaps a little more puzzling than his 'Conservatism.' I'm afraid we'll wait in vain for 'Socialism' and 'Fascism.' Fawcett is refVery enjoyable, if perhaps a little more puzzling than his 'Conservatism.' I'm afraid we'll wait in vain for 'Socialism' and 'Fascism.' Fawcett is refreshingly willing to just give definitions, and to include in or out whomever he wants; the second edition includes a particularly odd and defensive reaction to critics who complained about his including Sartre in--like, did they ever read *any* existentialism?
The book suffers a bit from Fawcett's unwillingness to include anything on proto-liberals--no Madison in here, for instance; it also suffers from Fawcett's tendency to bury things in the middle of paragraphs, which shouldn't happen to anyone who writes such nice sentences.
Failing all else, he gets four stars for describing 'The Road to Serfdom' as a 'noir classic,' which pretty much nails how seriously anyone should take that book intellectually, but also how effective it is emotionally. ...more
Loading...
