What are you reading?

[Traitorfish]

Finished The Invention of Tradition by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Good, but the chapters on Scotland and Wales were a bit disappointing, because they mostly focused on the genealogy of particular romantic icons or institutions, rather than about how they became popularised. (The Welsh chapter was better, because it did talk about things like the Eisteddfod and the Welsh Societies, which bridge the gap between elite and popular romance.)

Also finished Civil Disobedience and Other Essays by Henry David Thoreau. Most people seem to portray him as a very solemn, earnest sort of person, but his writing is full of very sly humour if you read with a mind for it.

Starting on Nations and Nationalism since 1870 by Eric Hobsbawm. (There was a sale on Hobsbawm books, in case anyone's noticing a pattern.) Still struggling along with Gorz's The Division of Labour, as well- it's mostly translated from French or Italian and pretty dry to begin with, so I can only bring myself to read it when in a particular sort of mood.

 

[Mouthwash]

Finished The Invention of Tradition by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Good, but the chapters on Scotland and Wales were a bit disappointing, because they mostly focused on the genealogy of particular romantic icons or institutions, rather than about how they became popularised. (The Welsh chapter was better, because it did talk about things like the Eisteddfod and the Welsh Societies, which bridge the gap between elite and popular romance.)

Also finished Civil Disobedience and Other Essays by Henry David Thoreau. Most people seem to portray him as a very solemn, earnest sort of person, but his writing is full of very sly humour if you read with a mind for it.

Starting on Nations and Nationalism since 1870 by Eric Hobsbawm. (There was a sale on Hobsbawm books, in case anyone's noticing a pattern.) Still struggling along with Gorz's The Division of Labour, as well- it's mostly translated from French or Italian and pretty dry to begin with, so I can only bring myself to read it when in a particular sort of mood.

How fast do you read?

 

[Flying Pig]

Also finished Civil Disobedience and Other Essays by Henry David Thoreau. Most people seem to portray him as a very solemn, earnest sort of person, but his writing is full of very sly humour if you read with a mind for it.

Have you read Walden?

 

[Traitorfish]

How fast do you read?

Not very fast. You're only looking at about four hundred pages over three weeks, there.

Have you read Walden?

Sort of. I've read an abridged version called "Where I Lived and What I Lived For", which as far as I can tell drops the more biographical/narrative chapters in favour of the more philosophical ones. I'm meaning to get around to the full version eventually.

 

[Cutlass]

Don't get me wrong. I like Stiglitz. I just find his writing to be meh.

I find economist generally aren't really great at communication.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, we can't expect them to understand the irrational nuances of our primitive hoo-man dialect.

 

[Masada]

Some of us speak the King's English and not whatever passes for English in Scawtland.

I find economist generally aren't really great at communication.

Same, and I'd really like to know why.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I'm reading The Story of my Experiments With Truth, by Gandhi, and Alexander Hamilton, by Rob Chernow. The Hamilton book is part of this year's Fourth of July reading, but it's 800 pages so I started early. It was reccommended to balance the anti-Hamiltonian views I get in reading about Adams and Jefferson, since the author is quite enamored of Hamilton. Gandhi's work is proving to be more autobiographical than philosophically interesting: I thought from the title it would be about his study of various religions and philosophies, since he was informed and inspired by many traditions.

 

[Flying Pig]

I find economist generally aren't really great at communication.

I'd be interested to know what you think of Stephen E Landsburg

 

[Cutlass]

I'd be interested to know what you think of Stephen E Landsburg

I can't say that I've read enough by him, and nothing recently, to offer an opinion.

That's not to say that no economist writes or communicates well. But that as a general rule the members of the profession commonly don't communicate well. Few actually write for the general audience. And that may well be a large part of it. Around here, when JerichoHill and Whomp got into these subjects, they would commonly write as if everyone reading them had the same core background education that they had. And anyone who didn't got left in the dust fairly often. So they are writing with an ingrained assumption that nothing that they were saying really needed a, not a dumbing down, but rather a simplification of terms, an explanation of terms, or the use of terms common outside of economics and fiance.

You spent your career as a soldier. If you were going through the planning of an exercise or operation with a group of men who had trained together for years, most of whom were many year veterans, would you speak to them in the same way that you would to a group of recruits or new conscripts? I think a lot of what happens with economists is similar to that. You can leave people in the dark fairly quickly just because they lack your depth of background and have a specific jargon that they speak.

Alexander Hamilton, by Rob Chernow. The Hamilton book is part of this year's Fourth of July reading, but it's 800 pages so I started early. It was reccommended to balance the anti-Hamiltonian views I get in reading about Adams and Jefferson, since the author is quite enamored of Hamilton.

That's the guy who wrote the big Washington book. Which I thought was pretty good for the most part. I'll have to remember that one for the next time I have the time and energy for a serious book.

 

[Flying Pig]

I can't say that I've read enough by him, and nothing recently, to offer an opinion.

That's not to say that no economist writes or communicates well. But that as a general rule the members of the profession commonly don't communicate well. Few actually write for the general audience. And that may well be a large part of it. Around here, when JerichoHill and Whomp got into these subjects, they would commonly write as if everyone reading them had the same core background education that they had. And anyone who didn't got left in the dust fairly often. So they are writing with an ingrained assumption that nothing that they were saying really needed a, not a dumbing down, but rather a simplification of terms, an explanation of terms, or the use of terms common outside of economics and fiance.

You spent your career as a soldier. If you were going through the planning of an exercise or operation with a group of men who had trained together for years, most of whom were many year veterans, would you speak to them in the same way that you would to a group of recruits or new conscripts? I think a lot of what happens with economists is similar to that. You can leave people in the dark fairly quickly just because they lack your depth of background and have a specific jargon that they speak.

Yes - the reason that I mentioned him is that he writes for the nonspecialist, and in a deliberately accessible style. He explains technical terms before he introduces them, so you end up feeling quite clever despite being carefully led through the subject matter. I'm not sure that many economists go in for that, though.

 

[Takhisis]

Mesa reading Egil's Saga yet again, as filler.

 

[Zelig]

I just had about 30 seconds to load some stuff on my ereader in the morning before leaving for work, so I dragged over a couple dozen discworld novels and started on the first one. Are they good?

Just finished The Selfish Gene. I might start with Fooled by Randomness soon.

Both excellent.

 

[Takhisis]

They're all good, Discorwld novels. Give 'em some time, not all of them are the kind you take a liking to straight away. The first by order of publication are those of Rincewind the Wizzard, but it's better to start, IMO, with Nightwatch.

 

[Flying Pig]

Night Watch is chronologically after Guards, Guards!, Men at Arms, Feet of Clay, The Fifth Elephant and Thud! That said, it's the best Discworld book by far.

 

[Zelig]

Too, late, I started with the one labeled as #1.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I liked Discworld, one just needs to be the kind of person who digs the humor it uses I suppose. But I also found that after a few books it started to get repetitive.

 

[Ajidica]

I liked Monstrous Regiment, Thud, Going Postal, and The Fifth Elephant.

I'm looking for book reccomendations. Anything good on Maoist China, Post-War Europe, or post-colonial India?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I liked Monstrous Regiment, Thud, Going Postal, and The Fifth Elephant.

I'm looking for book reccomendations. Anything good on Maoist China, Post-War Europe, or post-colonial India?

For Maoist China, read Han Suyin' Trilogy, which starts with The Morning Deluge I don't remember the names of the other two.
Post-war Europe: Start with Charles L Mee's Meeting at Potsdam which is the post VE day meeting that shaped post-war Europe. Chilling.

I got nothing on India EXCEPT Midnight's Children a novel by Salman Rushdie which features 1947 to 1973 heavily as its backdrop. It is Rushdie's most tolerable work of fiction and was the subject of my midterm thesis in 1991.

Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.

 

[Flying Pig]

I liked Monstrous Regiment, Thud, Going Postal, and The Fifth Elephant.

I'm looking for book reccomendations. Anything good on Maoist China, Post-War Europe, or post-colonial India?

I got nothing on India EXCEPT Midnight's Children a novel by Salman Rushdie which features 1947 to 1973 heavily as its backdrop. It is Rushdie's most tolerable work of fiction and was the subject of my midterm thesis in 1991.

The God of Small Things is along similar lines.