Which book are you reading now? Volume X

[Kozmos]

Just read the Dark Fields and contemplating between Quantum Thief or Shadowrise. Maybe even The Singularity Is Near by Kurzweil.

 

[Antilogic]

Oh I see. Well to be fair, the situation the Navy found itself in in 1812 is obviously similar to that in the 1770s. And the Barbary adventure was indeed epic!

I wasn't trying to be a prick or anything, just letting the potential audience know what they would be reading about before they pick up the book. The situations were very similar, although the Americans were building much better ships in the colonies than they had during the American Revolution. Plenty of frigate duels and high seas raiding, makes for an exciting read.

I have finished it. It's interesting, but it's a little hard to follow. The author tends to wander around a bit and then tie it together later.

The premise of the book is to explore what changed in the world as a result of Columbus' voyage and "discovery of the new world". What he most follows is the biological effects of of the mixing of the species of the old world and new. It's a very different way to look at the history of a number of places. And a very different view of some of things "known" about the new world.

With this guy, I'm glad I read his work, for the information, but I'm less pleased by the presentation.

How does it compare to 1491? I'm planning on starting that later in January once I get back home (I'm living out of a suitcase from now until mid-January, it's left behind).

I'm starting Pacific Crucible by Ian Toll.

Loved his work on Six Frigates, I'd love to hear how PC stacks up. I didn't pick it up because I've recently read Shattered Sword and Neptune's Inferno, both about early Pacific naval engagements, and Last Stand of the Tin Can Soldiers about the Battle of Leyte Gulf, focusing on the Battle off Samar. All three I'd recommend if you like the Pacific Theater of Operations.



I'm finishing up Empires of the Sea: Final Battle for the Mediterranean, 1521-1580. It details the Turkish and Christian fleet engagements and maneuvers, the siege of Malta, and culminates with Cyprus and the Battle of Lepanto. The description of the sieges on Malta and Cyprus were quite vivid, I'm looking forward to the description of Lepanto.

 

[Cutlass]

How does it compare to 1491? I'm planning on starting that later in January once I get back home (I'm living out of a suitcase from now until mid-January, it's left behind).

Not quite as good. But certainly a worthwhile read.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Just finished this one:

 

[Arriaga II]

George C. Marshall: Ordeal and Hope, 1939-1942.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I finished Reamde and loved it. It's a contemporary thriller by Neal Stephenson.

 

[Integral]

Halfway through Pacific Crucible. Couldn't be more pleased.

So far (~100 pages in) I am not impressed by Debt: The First 5000 Years.

 

[Verarde]

Reading I, Jedi by Michael A. Stackpole.

 

[Agent327]

1493. Pretty interesting.

Also pretty oblivious to Euro-Asian relations, apart from (for the most part) Spain.

 

[Masada]

1493 - Not as good as 1491. W/E.
Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel - Quite a good analysis, readable but still sophisticated.
The French Wars of Religion, 1562-1629, Second Edition: Very readable.
The Elephants Journey - Well worth a read.
The Forever War - Really good.

I'll keep adding books as I remember what I read.

Also pretty oblivious to Euro-Asian relations, apart from (for the most part) Spain.

Insufficient space. Author is even good enough to acknowledge that twice in the book.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I'm just starting 9 Stories by J. D. Salinger.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Finished "The Denial of Death" about a week ago. It started off pretty good but sort of ran out of steam towards the end. Maybe I just got tired of reading about how great Otto Rank was page after page. Still, I think it deserved the Pulitzer that it won in 1974.

 

[Verarde]

Started Reflections on the Revolution in France, by Edmund Burke.

 

[Agent327]

1493 - Not as good as 1491.

[...]

Insufficient space. Author is even good enough to acknowledge that twice in the book.

In a book that purports to describe globalization (which, by the way, didn´t start in 1493), this is a major omission, which certainly isn´t solved by simply focusing mainly on Spain. That the author acknowledges this even twice in his own book is further evidence for this. Simply saying ´not enough space´ doesn´t cut it. It has been mentioned that the author´s lack of knowledge of sources (like from French and Dutch) may have been responsible here; if not, he could easily have written a book thrice the size it is now (not uncommon among historians) and made it much more interesting and to the point.

 

[Cutlass]

In a book that purports to describe globalization (which, by the way, didn´t start in 1493), this is a major omission, which certainly isn´t solved by simply focusing mainly on Spain. That the author acknowledges this even twice in his own book is further evidence for this. Simply saying ´not enough space´ doesn´t cut it. It has been mentioned that the author´s lack of knowledge of sources (like from French and Dutch) may have been responsible here; if not, he could easily have written a book thrice the size it is now (not uncommon among historians) and made it much more interesting and to the point.

I think the thing about that is that he's not focusing on the globalization of customs and commerce. Not really the humans at all. But rather what he calls the beginning of an era of world history that he labels the "homogonozine". As such, the Dutch and English and French really don't matter to the overall picture that he is painting.

 

[Masada]

In a book that purports to describe globalization (which, by the way, didn´t start in 1493), this is a major omission, which certainly isn´t solved by simply focusing mainly on Spain.

Uh, sure. Even so, 1491 (or 1493 for the Columbian Exchange [1]) is a a popular date: considering that up until that point that the globe was divided into two discrete, biological and historical, halves (a major theme of the book). Second, he focused on what the Columbian Exchange meant for globalisation and not on globalisation in of itself, although the two do, as he shows, go hand in fist. Third, it doesn't matter a wit that he didn't invoke the French or Dutch experiences: it doesn't detract from the point he was trying to make that the Columbian Exchange was a Big Thing and that it had significant positive and negative impacts across the globe: in China, Taiwan, Brazil, New England, Spain and Indonesia.

That the author acknowledges this even twice in his own book is further evidence for this.

Not in the least, he obviously knows he's biased, which suggests he knows of alternative literature he could have used.

Simply saying ´not enough space´ doesn´t cut it. It has been mentioned that the author´s lack of knowledge of sources (like from French and Dutch) may have been responsible here; if not, he could easily have written a book thrice the size it is now (not uncommon among historians) and made it much more interesting and to the point.

Yes, it does. He's writing to the lay public. As it is the book runs to 434 pages. That's already quite long: I have specialised monographs that are shorter and written in vastly more stilted prose (more on this later). This is quite apart from the fact that at its present length it still manages to be readable and interesting, while avoiding repetition.

Furthermore, Mann's a journalist for Science and the Atlantic Monthly. He isn't an academic and his whole thing is exposing people to academic research in an accessible format. A Laudable goal. That should be apparent from the style. Finally, in what alternative reality does tripling the length of a book (to 1200 pages in this case) make it more to the point?

[1] This is also taken to include the flows of New World silver because I can't be bothered adding ALSO SILVER into every other sentence.

 

[GamezRule]

I hath been assigned Lord of the Flies. I'm also going to get around to reading Brave New World sometime soon.

 

[Verarde]

I hath been assigned Lord of the Flies.

That is such a great book!

 

[Abegweit]

That is such a great book!

Despite the fact that it is so terribly terribly wrong.

 

[Agent327]

I think the thing about that is that he's not focusing on the globalization of customs and commerce. Not really the humans at all. But rather what he calls the beginning of an era of world history that he labels the "homogonozine". As such, the Dutch and English and French really don't matter to the overall picture that he is painting.

The reviewer in the NYT Books Review seems to disagree with you on this.

Uh, sure. Even so, 1491 (or 1493 for the Columbian Exchange [1]) is a a popular date: considering that up until that point that the globe was divided into two discrete, biological and historical, halves (a major theme of the book). Second, he focused on what the Columbian Exchange meant for globalisation and not on globalisation in of itself, although the two do, as he shows, go hand in fist. Third, it doesn't matter a wit that he didn't invoke the French or Dutch experiences: it doesn't detract from the point he was trying to make that the Columbian Exchange was a Big Thing and that it had significant positive and negative impacts across the globe: in China, Taiwan, Brazil, New England, Spain and Indonesia.

Uh, sure. The ´Columbian exchange´ didn´t start globalization. It´s simply part of a process that had started centuries before. So inshort he omits a major part of his own subject.

Not in the least, he obviously knows he's biased, which suggests he knows of alternative literature he could have used.

If he who was able to read French or Dutch, that is. And ´alternative literature´ doesn´t cut it. He simply omits a major part of the sources, calling this approach ´journalism´.

Yes, it does. He's writing to the lay public. As it is the book runs to 434 pages. That's already quite long: I have specialised monographs that are shorter and written in vastly more stilted prose (more on this later). This is quite apart from the fact that at its present length it still manages to be readable and interesting, while avoiding repetition.

How does omitting a major part of globalization enlighten the lay public on his subject?

Furthermore, Mann's a journalist for Science and the Atlantic Monthly. He isn't an academic and his whole thing is exposing people to academic research in an accessible format. A Laudable goal. That should be apparent from the style. Finally, in what alternative reality does tripling the length of a book (to 1200 pages in this case) make it more to the point?

In the reality of historiography it does. Henry Kissinger doesn´t write short books, usually, but he´s well read (as well as well-read).

Mann focusing on globalization as a geobiological concept makes 1493 a rather abitrary date. As you mentioned yourself, it´s not as good as 1491; that doesn´t mean the book isn´t informative - given its parameters.