GGS was a lousy book

TCO · June 22, 2002, 22:03

Excruciatingly PC.

Unscientific. (Lack of footnotes, etc.)

Makes an argument in favor of one effecta and assumes that disproves another effect. (When in fact both can occur.)

Very repetetive and poorly written.

Nath · June 23, 2002, 09:07

If you say so. I rather enjoyed the parts I read, though. Haven't seen any better books on the subject.

Maniac · June 23, 2002, 10:20

It's a while ago I read it, so could you please elaborate why you think what you think? And why the heck is a book without footnotes necessarily unscientific? I have currently a book from the library about Chinese civilization. Apparently it's recognized to be a very good work, and that too doesn't have any footnotes. So what?

TCO · June 23, 2002, 11:36

Footnotes allow one to check facts and to go deeper into a subject. A more seriosu book will have footnotes. peer-reviewed science papers will have footnotes. This is not a political thing. I just read a great book--A Beautiful Mind--it was written by a New York Times reporter and was very well researched and full of footnotes. Much better nonfiction book than GGS.

GGS is for lightweights.

Oerdin · June 23, 2002, 12:07

You are confusing a mass market book for an academic publication. The substance of G,G, & S has been well debated in academic circles for years; the book is an attempt to take the current scientific understanding and put it in a form that is readable to the common man.
Viewed in this way you can see why the book is so successful and so widely acclamed.

TCO · June 23, 2002, 13:56

No, I'm not. Look at A Beautiful Mind, The Bell Curve or Laser for examples of popular books with footnotes.

GGS covers a very interesting subject in depth and many of the hypotheses will be new to most readers. He should have included the footnotes.

TCO · June 23, 2002, 13:58

Anybody who can write with such a pedantic, turgid style can include footnotes.

Actually, he could include the footnotes and drop the pompous style. That would be best. A better read...AND better scholarship.

Oerdin · June 23, 2002, 15:03

Different authors have different styles of writting and different readers have different tastes in books. I for one enjoyed the writting style of GGS.

I do however agree that footnotes would have been nice to see though I recognize them as unnecissary in the popular press.

TCO · June 23, 2002, 15:16

Do you surf?

I used to surf at Ocean Beach all the time...

VetLegion · June 23, 2002, 20:08

GP, GGS has 'chapternotes' of a kind, on the end of the book there are references to books and works about the area that was covered in each chapter. they are pretty extensive (and footnotes would have been imposible)

as for the book... I just acquired it not long ago and read it, now I am selling it

overall I liked the book very much and I am glad I read it. this may be because I havent read alltogether many history books (4 or 5 max) so I learnt alot about the idea 'geographic determinism' from this work. also I liked interdisciplinary approach very much.

the biggest issues I have is that the book is a bit repetitive and fails to explain some things alltogether, like why didnt llamas spread to mexico from andes via trade, if they could not have spread naturally because of big ecological obstacles. It was a lively trade between those areas, diseases reached andes through it too.

'geographic obstacles' are very poorly described imo too, the ones in americas especially. it took only a few centuries to populate the entire landmass from alaska to patagonia, but the diffussion of ideas from andes to mexico and mexico to USA was halted by now unpassable geographical obstacles? hard to believe.

I appreciate the insights to reasons why some animals can not be domesticated, though I would like more detail about it

authors claims that average new guineans are smarter then average europians are crap though

altogether a great book for us folks who just dont have the resources to read alot of literature to draw conclusions from. mr. Jared sums it up excelantly, and if his line of thought is even wrong it is great material for thinking, and discussion.

Nath · June 24, 2002, 09:05

Quote:

Do you surf?

I used to surf at Ocean Beach all the time...

Is this some sort of metaphor or just a sudden change of subject?

Maniac · June 24, 2002, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion
authors claims that average new guineans are smarter then average europians are crap though

Yes indeed!

That was one very questionable theory I must say.

TCO · June 24, 2002, 15:01

Just shows you what a ****er the author is...

S. Kroeze · June 24, 2002, 17:53

I do not agree with this criticism at all.

In my opinion it is a great book, though indeed rather non-specialist. This shouldn't surprise anyone because the author is not a historian, but a professor of physiology!

And this book is certainly breaking new grounds because it introduce questions historians never ask! They wouldn't dare to do so!
The period J.Diamond discusses is very extensive, about most of this period we do not possess written sources, the traditional source of historians. Yet that does not mean the questions Diamond brings forward are not important, even if some of his answers are incorrect.

I would have loved when this material would have been part of the standard curriculum at the university. It is not, because it is an almost completely untrodden field of knowledge and requires acquaintance with several self-reliant scientific disciplines. In the academic world the hedges are rather high!

I learnt many new insights from this book, I have never heard about during my years at the university! Studying History in practice means studying Europe and the Western world. I did hardly learn anything about China, India, Africa or pre-Columbian America. Hardly ever were questions about the causes of the dominance of the Western world discussed at all. The importance of printing, the Renaissance and Industrialisation were stressed, but it is obvious these developments are only part of the answer.

TCO · June 25, 2002, 10:59

The more you know, the less you like this book. It appeals to historical newbies and to those who don't want to think too hard.

It's also rather strained in some of the examples (i.e. his proofs aren't that great.) I do agree that it raises interesting questions.

It is also poorly written.

VetLegion · June 25, 2002, 13:24

you claiming we are all ignorant here?

Quote:

It is also poorly written.

has some jokes in the text, maybe you missed them

btw stop spreading bad word about the book, how am I going to sell it?

go off and write a positive review on amazon instead

chrispie · June 25, 2002, 16:30

Quote:

The more you know, the less you like this book.

Wow, so by your own admission you must be omnipotent!!! I think that is the single most arrogant statement I've ever heard.

Anyway, I don't know much and much

and certainly I don't know much about scientific books etc. Though I do believe there has to be sacrifices for this type of book to appeal to the masses.

Oerdin · June 28, 2002, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
Do you surf?

I used to surf at Ocean Beach all the time...

Yes, I surf on occation. My roommate surf's (or rather surfed) far more then I do/did. He has seven surfboards, one for every day of the week, unfortunately since we both got "real jobs" neither of us have been surfing much lately.

TCO · June 28, 2002, 18:25

I love to longboard...

Oerdin · June 29, 2002, 18:50

In Atlanta?

aeturneus · July 10, 2002, 21:10

I've always thought that footnotes are essential to popular non-fiction publications because popular publications are supposed to link the masses to the academic field, or should at least try to. How is there a link, if there are no footnotes? It's kind of like writing an article on C++ for a popular audience and publishing it on the web with no hyperlinks to any more information...

MattyBoy · July 19, 2002, 03:18

chrispie, do you mean omniscient?
I loved this book and was happy to accept it as read. I would not have followed up any links due to lack of time, but still enjoyed the ideas presented.

As for repetitiveness, I agree that it sunk into a repetitive mode towards the end and I finally lost interest.

I would give the book a strong recommendation.

And before you ask, GP - yes, I don't know much.

chrispie · July 19, 2002, 19:50

No Matty, I did mean omnipotent, though omniscient is probably a better description anyway - knowledge is power, but I guess power isn't knowledge...

MattyBoy · July 21, 2002, 20:07

Sorry, I understand now.