Whatcha reading?

[youngcharlie101]

I'm reading "Lolita" for the first time. It's quite intense. What a creepy pedophile! But there is one line that makes me cry every time I read it, especially since I'm going through a breakup with my first love:

 

"My solemn exasperation was to her the silence of love." <3

[ashiepoo72]

Did you read works by those authors before you made the decision to study history as a profession?

 

I have never met a layperson that read books by those authors because its fun and/or interesting. I read Gordon Wood's "Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History" in a lower division undergrad class (we assigned certain chapters for class, so not the whole book), and I remember alot of students, taking that class to fulfill gen. ed. requirements, hated it. 

 

The authors that you listed are readable for us. We actually need to test it out to see if it is, indeed, readable (and this means, the reader enjoys and understands the text) for the layperson. Neither one of us, on this site (or more specifically in the history section), can say for sure that the works by these authors are readable. We can definitely say that Zinn and Diamond are readable for the layperson because of the number of sales and how widely these scholars are known. And because the high number of sales, we can most definitely say that People's History and Guns, Germs & Steel are not at all arduous to read. 

 

Well since you want to make assumptions, I should say that some of these authors were ones I read in high school, and I actually have shared my reading list with different family and friends interested in learning more about certain subjects. For the most part, everyone is surprised by how readable academic historians can be. We don't need to spoon feed people stuff because they supposedly can't handle historical and critical thinking. That's doing everyone a disservice. I never argued that Zinn and Diamond aren't readable. I'm arguing from my own experience and I "can say for sure" that there certainly are scholarly works that are readable.

Edited March 6, 2015 by ashiepoo72

[thedig13]

Did you read works by those authors before you made the decision to study history as a profession?

 

I have never met a layperson that read books by those authors because its fun and/or interesting. I read Gordon Wood's "Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History" in a lower division undergrad class (we assigned certain chapters for class, so not the whole book), and I remember alot of students, taking that class to fulfill gen. ed. requirements, hated it. 

 

The authors that you listed are readable for us. We actually need to test it out to see if it is, indeed, readable (and this means, the reader enjoys and understands the text) for the layperson. Neither one of us, on this site (or more specifically in the history section), can say for sure that the works by these authors are readable. We can definitely say that Zinn and Diamond are readable for the layperson because of the number of sales and how widely these scholars are known. And because the high number of sales, we can most definitely say that People's History and Guns, Germs & Steel are not at all arduous to read. 

 

Well since you want to make assumptions, I should say that some of these authors were ones I read in high school, and I actually have shared my reading list with different family and friends interested in learning more about certain subjects. For the most part, everyone is surprised by how readable academic historians can be. We don't need to spoon feed people stuff because they supposedly can't handle historical and critical thinking. That's doing everyone a disservice. I never argued that Zinn and Diamond aren't readable. I'm arguing from my own experience and I "can say for sure" that there certainly are scholarly works that are readable.

 

Along the same lines of thinking, I should mention that I've recommended a few monographs (off the top of my head, stuff by Jill Lepore, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Adrian Burgos, and Kelly Lytle Hernandez) to nonacademic friends; they generally found these historians enjoyable and readable.

 

I would hope that every academic (regardless of his/her target audience) tries to craft an appealing/enjoyable learning experience (I know I hate reading poorly-written histories), and, similarly, I would hope that every layperson claiming to write history holds himself/herself to a rigorous intellectual standard. I dislike the notion that nonacademics are somehow unequipped to read scholarly works -- if a sentence or concept is so dense that only specially-trained people can comprehend it, this doesn't make it more sophisticated or intelligent; it just means that the author lacked the skills (or inclination) to write comprehensibly. I entered the historical profession because I believe in the power of good historical sense and wanted to help others (including nonacademics, if possible) develop it, not so that I could lord over or alienate people who don't have the privilege of spending their entire lives reading books and attending lectures.

 

In short, the dichotomy between readability and academic rigor is preposterous and utterly contrived. Poor writing skills are poor writing skills (not a marker of sophistication or intelligence), just as poor research is poor research (not a sign of "readability"). Regardless of the target audience, historians have little excuse for either, as far as I am concerned.

Edited March 17, 2015 by thedig13

[kotov]

 

In other words, the problem with Diamond is not what he's doing, it's that he's bad at it.

 

Hi, you're my best friend now.

[kotov]

I'm reading "Lolita" for the first time. It's quite intense. What a creepy pedophile! But there is one line that makes me cry every time I read it, especially since I'm going through a breakup with my first love:

 

"My solemn exasperation was to her the silence of love." <3

 

Lolita is brilliant. There are so many puns and double entendres in the text, it's just incredible to read. And English was the man's third language.

[twentysix]

Currently I am reading A Year in the South: 1865: The True Story of Four Ordinary People Who Lived Through the Most Tumultuous Twelve Months in American History by Stephen Ash.

[kotov]

Currently:

 

Hildrun Glass, Deutschland und die Verfolgung der Juden im Rumänischen Machtbereich, 1940-1944

Armin Heinen, Rumänien, der Holocaust und die Logik der Gewalt

Ottmar Trasca, "Chestiunea Evreiasca" în documente militare române, 1941-1944

 

Soon (hopefully):

 

Sebastian Balta, Rumänien und die Großmächte in der Ära Antonescu

 

 

Turn down for what?

[Fianna]

Right now, I'm reading a bunch of cases for my thesis on testamentary manumission in Virginia. Yay, source coding! I'm also reading several books for a paper on legal pluralism for a comparative empire seminar I'm taking. Hooker's Legal Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-Colonial Laws is really awesome.

[missmend]

I'm terrible in that depending on mood and the time I have to read, I'll bounce from book to book. I think I have something like 5-6 sitting on my nightstand right now and another in my purse.

 

Frank Herbert, Dune (because it's essentially required reading if you want to understand anything in Lynch's film)

Tara Zahra, The Lost Children: Reconstructing Europe's Families after World War II 

Ian Kershaw, Stalinism and Nazism

Padraic Kenney, A Carnival of Revolution: Central Europe 1989

 

I also read a ton of comics (I work in a comic shop, so it's pretty mandatory) and have been reading Matt Fraction's Casanova series in their new hardcover. I used to be a big X-Men fan but their books have been so bad lately I'm ready to declare the franchise dead

[rising_star]

Totally late to the party but, a few things. 1) Carney and Diamond are technically in the same geography department at UCLA. That said, geographers have huge issues with GGS and spent a lot of time at a conference a few years ago telling Diamond that to his face. Interesting stuff if you want to look it up. 2) People must be reading popular historians because some of them appeared on "The Colbert Report" to talk about their books and others are on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". I assume they get the "Colbert bump" so to speak and that people at least buy their books. If and when that happens, that probably means they get read more than most other academic historians.

 

As a non-historian, I'll say that Cronon and Foner are both very easy to read. 

[kotov]

As a non-historian, I'll say that Cronon and Foner are both very easy to read. 

 

I taught U.S. to 1865 one semester using one of Foner's textbooks. I thought it was pretty accessible and well-written enough that a non-major could still get through it without much trouble. That said, I hope I never get stuck teaching American again, since I haven't taken an American history class myself since APUSH in 11th grade...

[thedig13]

Updating my current reading list:

 

Margaret Jacobs, White Mother to a Dark Race (possibly the most gripping and emotional introduction to an academic text I've read)

Donald Ritchie, Doing Oral History

Naoko Shibusawa, America's Geisha Ally

Alice Goffman, On the Run

Gerald Horne, Fire This Time

Andrew Needham, Power Lines

Edited April 4, 2015 by thedig13

[Fianna]

I love Margaret Jacobs's book. If you haven't yet, read Antoinette Burton's Burdens of History, too. It's another interesting take on the gendered spaces of imperialism.

 

Sadly, right now I'm reading undergraduate essays. I really hate failing people for plagiarism.

[thedig13]

I love Margaret Jacobs's book. If you haven't yet, read Antoinette Burton's Burdens of History, too. It's another interesting take on the gendered spaces of imperialism.

 

Sadly, right now I'm reading undergraduate essays. I really hate failing people for plagiarism.

 

The introduction/prologue to Jacobs' book was so fricken intense, I had to put down the text and take a few deep breaths every 2-3 pages.

[kotov]

I love Margaret Jacobs's book. If you haven't yet, read Antoinette Burton's Burdens of History, too. It's another interesting take on the gendered spaces of imperialism.

 

Sadly, right now I'm reading undergraduate essays. I really hate failing people for plagiarism.

 

Agreed. Jacobs was great. Another I'd recommend in that vein is Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts. I would say it's something like a more transnational version of King Leopold's Ghost, some of the more shocking results of colonialism and some of the non-European empires of the 19th Century (i.e., Brazil and Qing China).

[Fianna]

Agreed. Jacobs was great. Another I'd recommend in that vein is Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts. I would say it's something like a more transnational version of King Leopold's Ghost, some of the more shocking results of colonialism and some of the non-European empires of the 19th Century (i.e., Brazil and Qing China).

 

That's been added to the list. Thanks so much for the recommendation.

[wacyeah]

 

For academic book, I'm reading Dr. Yuma Totani's "The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Pursuit of Justice in the Wake of WWII" coz she's gonna be my primary advisor.

 For entertainment purpose, I'd been reading Haruki Murakami's The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle in Japanese (as I'm Japanese) but I'm now stuck at vol. 3 (the original ver. is divided into 3 books), and I still have to finish reading Lisa Genova's Still Alice. I'm kinda interested in Child-44 as well as I saw the movie trailer the other day but is it any good?

[ToomuchLes]

I just devoured "Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the uses of history" by Gordon Wood this week. It was delectable 

[Gambaosaka1]

 

 

For academic book, I'm reading Dr. Yuma Totani's "The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Pursuit of Justice in the Wake of WWII" coz she's gonna be my primary advisor.

 For entertainment purpose, I'd been reading Haruki Murakami's The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle in Japanese (as I'm Japanese) but I'm now stuck at vol. 3 (the original ver. is divided into 3 books), and I still have to finish reading Lisa Genova's Still Alice. I'm kinda interested in Child-44 as well as I saw the movie trailer the other day but is it any good?

 

 

That was the first Murakami book I read (my first year of undegrad). My professor recommended it to me because of the references to WWII. Still my favourite Murakami. Are you reading it in English or Japanese? At the moment I don't have enough time to read with my Japanese language studies so instead I take notes while listening to New Books podcast series. Wish I had time as I have a massive reading list piling up.

[ashiepoo72]

I finished Adrienne Edgar's Tribal Nation: The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan last week, and I loved it. The way she structures her introduction is a grad student's dream. Oh the beauty of layers upon layers of historiographical positioning and clear argument.

I'm about to start Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-1960, edited by Joanne Meyerowitz. It's on my MA exam reading list, but I have to say I'm surprised at how many of the books I genuinely like and am excited to discuss.

[wacyeah]

That was the first Murakami book I read (my first year of undegrad). My professor recommended it to me because of the references to WWII. Still my favourite Murakami. Are you reading it in English or Japanese? At the moment I don't have enough time to read with my Japanese language studies so instead I take notes while listening to New Books podcast series. Wish I had time as I have a massive reading list piling up.

Im reading it in Japanese and yea it was lots of reference on WWII (the skinning scene of the army officer was too gruesome for me though). After I finish it, I'll probably gonna look for "Kafka on the Shore." Did you have fav moments in The Wind-up...? also, don't you think that Kumiko's plot is kinda similar to Gone Girl? (coz Gillian Flynn actually referred to the book in her novel too)

Edited April 11, 2015 by wacyeah

[Gambaosaka1]

Im reading it in Japanese and yea it was lots of reference on WWII (the skinning scene of the army officer was too gruesome for me though). After I finish it, I'll probably gonna look for "Kafka on the Shore." Did you have fav moments in The Wind-up...? also, don't you think that Kumiko's plot is kinda similar to Gone Girl? (coz Gillian Flynn actually referred to the book in her novel too)

 

That's funny because Kafka on the Shore is probably my second fav work on his. It's a fantastic read (although I read them in English of course). I read it around 10 years ago but the bit that always stuck with me was the relationship between the main character and the former POW (in a Soviet camp) who wrote about experiences to him...the only person he was able to express his experiences to decades down the line. I thought that was quite evocative.

 

Embarrassed to say I haven't read Gone Girl! Will look into it.

 

Have you read any Ryu Murakami? The only one I was drawn to was Only Transparent Blue which I thought was fantastic (brutal writing).

[wacyeah]

Yea I thought the relationship was also very interesting too. I actually didn't know Ryu Murakami at all. I should read his title as well

[dr. t]

Ursula K. Le Guin, The Wave in the Mind. Recommended highly.

[Conmel]

Two on the go at the moment:

 

Alistair Horne - A Savage War of Peace

 

Albert Hourani - Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age