Which book are you reading now? Volume XI

[Gen.Mannerheim]

I don't think that's entirely fair. His argument, as I understood it, is that quibbling over the reality of Arthur misses what's genuinely interesting about the period, and that historical records should be read with more attention to what they say about how people in the author's time thought about themselves and their historical context, rather than trying to build elaborate shoestring-theories. It's more than just a long-winded "i unno".

That said, I do think that Halsall muddies his own point by spending too long engaging with pop-historical discussions of Arthur, devoting enough of the book to them as to make them seem in-themselves important, and allowing the "agnostic" interpretation you're making. The historiography of Arthur could be a useful way of making a largely-overlooked period in British history accessible to non-scholars, but Halsall lets them take up rather more of the book than is necessary. You definitely get the impression this is a guy taking an opportunity to grind a few axes.

(I can't comment on grave goods, because my historical education is exclusively Early Modern, a sub-discipline in which written records are plentiful and archaeology is a form of witchcraft.)

That's kinda what im trying to say. The book was marketed as a true historian's look at Arthur, and Halsall himself states that the genesis of the book was his annoyance with pop history domination of the subject. He doesn't really explain his point about Arthur being a better launch point than the destination until the end of the book, making the migration sections really confusing for those here for "Arthur"

From what I understand, this is his harshest reviewed book. Historians blasted it for taking potshots at larger topics, and casual reviews are mixed for the above confusing reasons.

 

[Mouthwash]

Guy Halsall Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West: 376-568. I've already read Peter "I don't like immigrants" Heather's book and I don't feel like going anywhere near Bryan "UKIP Endorsed!" Ward-Perkins.

If religious people dismiss out of hand any scholar who doesn't support their views they're fundamentalists, and if right-wingers do that they're anti-intellectual. If leftists do it, they're apparently just classy.

How can you even think that this is an acceptable way to criticize someone?

 

[Traitorfish]

The alternative being that Ajidica should feel compelled to spend his free time reading a book that doesn't interest him?

 

[Mouthwash]

The alternative being that Ajidica should feel compelled to spend his free time reading a book that doesn't interest him?

If books that disagree with you in some manner don't interest you, than you've got the problem. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Traitorfish]

Or you've got limited free time and are realistic enough to know that the book will problem give you more frustration than insight. There are far too many books in the world to read ones you don't want out of a perverse spirit of fairness.

 

[Mouthwash]

Or you've got limited free time and are realistic enough to know that the book will probably give you more frustration than insight. There are far too many books in the world to read ones you don't want out of a perverse spirit of fairness.

I thought the point of reading nonfiction was to learn. The process of learning demands fair treatment of evidence.

 

[Traitorfish]

I thought the point of reading nonfiction was to learn. The process of learning demands fair treatment of evidence.

For scholars, perhaps, and for those with infinite supplies of money and free time. The rest of us have to be pragmatic.

 

[Takhisis]

And to get us back on track, I'm reading Roal Dahl's Over to you.

 

[Ajidica]

If religious people dismiss out of hand any scholar who doesn't support their views they're fundamentalists, and if right-wingers do that they're anti-intellectual. If leftists do it, they're apparently just classy.

1) I don't see the need to read a bunch of bad history that is way out of line with the scholarly consensus. Heather, as underwhelming as his recent work is, never got quoted with approval by UKIP Daily.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/professor-reminds-us-of-the-lessons-of-history/
The weird thing about Heather is that his early work, notably on the Goths, still is one of the best books on the subject. As far as I can tell, he hasn't updated his thesis over the last 20 years and didn't do a good job transition to pop history. Anyone who doesn't realize the Unfortunate Implications of writing, and I quote, "Immigrants caused the collapse of the Roman Empire" and then magnificently fail at looking at the continuity of the Imperial successor states (which was something he did very well in The Goths) has issues.
2) As TF mentioned, I have limited time and would rather read books that were very well received by the academic community than reading bad history simply to "learn about the debate".

How can you even think that this is an acceptable way to criticize someone?

Because I'm not getting butthurt and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?

 

[Mouthwash]

1) I don't see the need to read a bunch of bad history that is way out of line with the scholarly consensus. Heather, as underwhelming as his recent work is, never got quoted with approval by UKIP Daily.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/professor-reminds-us-of-the-lessons-of-history/

So? Half of your country agrees with UKIP. Call me when he lands the Nick Griffin endorsement.

The weird thing about Heather is that his early work, notably on the Goths, still is one of the best books on the subject. As far as I can tell, he hasn't updated his thesis over the last 20 years and didn't do a good job transition to pop history. Anyone who doesn't realize the Unfortunate Implications of writing, and I quote, "Immigrants caused the collapse of the Roman Empire" and then magnificently fail at looking at the continuity of the Imperial successor states (which was something he did very well in The Goths) has issues.

The Empire having 'continuity' isn't very impressive. How did people live; how much violence or trade was there in the fourth century compared to the second?

2) As TF mentioned, I have limited time and would rather read books that were very well received by the academic community than reading bad history simply to "learn about the debate".

But you didn't say it was considered bad by historians. You just stated it was endorsed by a political party you don't like and therefore you aren't even going to bother with it.

Because I'm not getting butthurt and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?

Don't knock it till you try it.

 

[Arakhor]

Last I heard, Ajidica wasn't British. Besides which, if half the electorate really did agree with UKIP, the party would have more than one solitary MP (who defected in the first place).

 

[Traitorfish]

Shifting the topic a bit, what is a good book reflecting the current scholarly consensus on the "Fall of Rome" period? Halsall books is probably more academic than I'd be comfortable with, seeing how I could fit everything I know about this period on a postcard, and most of that postcard would be a doodle of Attila the Hun eating somebody, so is there something out there that hits the intersection of accessible and serious?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Three body problem
The Dark forest <---- currently mid way
And Deaths end

 

[Mouthwash]

I am halfway through the Eye of the World currently and am perplexed at how anyone could view this to be a Great Work.

1. There is so much Tolkien imitation that it becomes distracting, even though I only read the Fellowship once as a kid and can't remember most of it. Even the plot so far is a beat-for-beat ripoff. It definitely crosses the line from tasteful homage to shameless plagiarism.

2. Jordan uses a lot of fantasy tropes, but writes them extremely badly. He has a group of the major characters form to journey to the Magical City Across the World, but the way he does it defies logic on any level. We don't know why they are going. We don't even know who these people (a group of random kids from the Shire and some random bard) are. Tolkien's Fellowship had a very clear goal and was constituted of important people in Middle Earth who all had reasons to want the Ring destroyed.

It gets worse. He has orcs that seem to be no match in combat for any of the main characters despite being described as deadly. He has a character unconsciously shout an ancient battle cry due to him unknowingly being a king or whatever. He has the main character actually be a baby taken by his father from the battlefield- and the way he reveals this is his father speaking in a delirium to no one in particular (he just happens to describe precisely what happened, and his son just happens to be there to hear). He reveals another character to be "halfway between the wild and man" and therefore having the innate ability to speak to wolves, despite him having zero personality traits to suggest that. All of this is justified by the Gandalf-expy's notion of destiny: everything is the way it is meant to be. Seriously, that's the justification she gives for allowing most of the people to join in the first place. And Jordan can't even let that be; he has a mystic who can see the future come up to them randomly and give them pointless hints about the destinies of everyone to affirm that they are indeed meant to be together. As if we weren't clear about that.

Worst of all, these aren't even done in a sensible order. It's just one random trope stacked on another. The main characters all have dreams of a known villain character chasing them but after they realize this the aforementioned mystic comes and tells them things, and they just never get around to dealing with it. Nynaeve is left behind in the Shire but catches up with them in the equivalent of Bree, making a mockery of all their precautions. Why not just have her come in the first place? It wouldn't make any less sense than how the others joined.

3. Jordan is overly descriptive in general (forgivable) and his dialogue is absolutely terrible (less forgivable).

4. Everyone in the books behaves like an idiot. The mystic makes a prophecy out loud despite them not even using Moiraine's real name due to being in a hostile city, Rand doesn't believe his father's delirious rant because it would be plot-inconvenient to have him know it at that point, Mat and Rand believe some random guy in a deserted city when he tells them he has lots of treasure for them (and Moiraine neglects to inform them of any danger), and there are a dozen other smaller annoyances.

I've often heard the Wheel of Time series compared to A Song of Ice and Fire, due to its "size, cast, and depth of plot." I can't judge what I haven't read, but based on what I have, Robert Jordan was GRRM's mentally handicapped cousin who only ever read Lord of the Rings.

I do not recommend.

 

[Arakhor]

Perhaps you could be less vituperative about the things you dislike. I don't believe I ever read Eye of the World, but i read some of his other books and I agree that they were often over-long and sometimes dull, but I did like some of the ideas. It was Terry Brooks' Sword of Shannara that was the beat-for-beat rip-off of Lord of the Rings though.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Literally just Tolkien with the names changed" is a sub-genre of fantasy in its own right, and a bafflingly successful one. Seemed to take until the nineties for a lot of fantasy fans to realise they didn't just have to read the same book over and over again.

 

[Lexicus]

Shifting the topic a bit, what is a good book reflecting the current scholarly consensus on the "Fall of Rome" period? Halsall books is probably more academic than I'd be comfortable with, seeing how I could fit everything I know about this period on a postcard, and most of that postcard would be a doodle of Attila the Hun eating somebody, so is there something out there that hits the intersection of accessible and serious?

Not sure how accessible you'll find it, but I read this a few years ago and found it to be very interesting.

"Literally just Tolkien with the names changed" is a sub-genre of fantasy in its own right, and a bafflingly successful one. Seemed to take until the nineties for a lot of fantasy fans to realise they didn't just have to read the same book over and over again.

One of my favorite fantasy series of all time is Harry Turtledove's Videssos, which was originally a LOTR fanfic that Turtledove decided to transplant to a fictionalized, fantasy version of the Byzantine Empire after getting a PhD in Byzantine history. Reading those books during a vacation where I was without internet basically sparked my entire interest in premodern history (before that I was more "all WW2, all the time").

 

[Mouthwash]

Perhaps you could be less vituperative about the things you dislike.

I'm not, unless those things are widely acclaimed. Then I feel I need to compensate.

 

[JollyRoger]

Just finished: Voices in Time: A Narratological Study by Alinda Quinn-Ford

Now reading: Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS by Joby Warrick

 

[warpus]

I've finished the Hyperion Cantos and have now begun reading A Fire Upon The Deep by Vernor Vinge.

Have never read anything by this guy before so let's see what happens. This was recommended to me as a "must read sci-fi novel" and after the first 4 pages so far so good