It may surprise you to learn that history books often cite previous writings and documents. Maybe you can write her a letter and dictate to a critically acclaimed history writer how a history book should be written.
maybe stop buying books at the airport? it's really not hard to find well-researched or well-sourced nonfiction.Dilbert_X wrote:
Last Hope Island - Lynne Olson
Nice idea, I expect a bit better than "in his book Max Hasting said" TBH.
Its literally cobbled together from maybe 10 other books, some actual research would have been nice.
I don't go to the airport, I wouldn't go there just to buy books.
Fuck Israel
imagine looking at the wealth of books on ww2 and buying popular-history trash by hacks like lynne olson.
you’re a big boy, i imagine you can ride a bike without stabilisers and get the school bus all by yourself and so on, you do know that you don’t have to read history written by popularisers, right?
why not read richard evans on the war? you’ll find thousands of citations and an immaculate bibliography therein. but no, you prefer to buy books written for a simple mass audience and then to complain that they’re insufficiently recondite.
maybe the problem isn’t with the discipline of history … it’s you?
you’re a big boy, i imagine you can ride a bike without stabilisers and get the school bus all by yourself and so on, you do know that you don’t have to read history written by popularisers, right?
why not read richard evans on the war? you’ll find thousands of citations and an immaculate bibliography therein. but no, you prefer to buy books written for a simple mass audience and then to complain that they’re insufficiently recondite.
maybe the problem isn’t with the discipline of history … it’s you?
I didn't buy that book, someone else did.
Fuck Israel
As gateway writers are concerned, imo you can do worse than Olson. Popular history at least has its place in familiarizing casual/lay readers with their ass from their elbow.
What gets me is that, dilbert, you're critical of history books that are too dry in presentation, yet respond with a resounding meh when presented with practically a bathroom reader.
Maybe there are only 10-30 books that fit your narrow criteria for any given subject.
What gets me is that, dilbert, you're critical of history books that are too dry in presentation, yet respond with a resounding meh when presented with practically a bathroom reader.
Maybe there are only 10-30 books that fit your narrow criteria for any given subject.
And there was me thinking you'd be pleased I've now read 33 books.
Fuck Israel
dilbert likes to stew in his own presumptions and superiority.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
As gateway writers are concerned, imo you can do worse than Olson. Popular history at least has its place in familiarizing casual/lay readers with their ass from their elbow.
What gets me is that, dilbert, you're critical of history books that are too dry in presentation, yet respond with a resounding meh when presented with practically a bathroom reader.
Maybe there are only 10-30 books that fit your narrow criteria for any given subject.
he could read engaging, well-researched, relevant history ... but that would take effort on his part. perhaps it would even challenge him or take 'work'. that would be most inconvenient because dilbert is sure that historians are mere scribblers 'of what has already happened' and thus 'don't really have real jobs'.
it's easier to sneer at the history-for-dummies stuff and remain assured in his own self-superiority, you see. scoff scoff! this only cites 10 books! indeed, says the guy who has read the same amount as your average fourth-grader in his entire life.
https://twitter.com/r_williams_soc/stat … 76416?s=24
amazing thread on the centenary of raymond williams.
immense thinker.
amazing thread on the centenary of raymond williams.
immense thinker.
To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing.
uziq wrote:
says the guy who has read the same amount as your average fourth-grader in his entire life.
Fuck Israel
a few more thoughts for you. good luck on the 42nd book.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3959
I had to quit a Reddit conversation in /r/HistoryMemes once it became obvious the person I was talking to was parroting a Youtube video.
Why is this in this thread? The video people were parroting an AltHistoryHub video.
I hate Historical Fiction and Alt-History. I hate Alt-History even more so than Historical Fiction. The issue with Alt-History is that it almost always is someone's creative writing project or wish fulfillment. Life is too random to be able to map out 'what would have happened if X did or did not happen'.
"Germany could have won World War 2 if Hitler didn't invade the Balkans"
"Hitler also could have overdosed to death on meth if he decided to not invade the Balkans."
Both are possibilities are equally plausible in a random universe. Someone mapping out World War 2 step by step if Hitler made a different decision is foolishness that should not be put to paper. It definitely shouldn't be published on youtube.
I know that this is my fault entirely but damn it is a bad situation when Youtubers are the ones pushing narratives.Newbie wrote:
What were you expecting on a sub with the name Meme in it?
Why is this in this thread? The video people were parroting an AltHistoryHub video.
AltHistoryHub
I hate Historical Fiction and Alt-History. I hate Alt-History even more so than Historical Fiction. The issue with Alt-History is that it almost always is someone's creative writing project or wish fulfillment. Life is too random to be able to map out 'what would have happened if X did or did not happen'.
"Germany could have won World War 2 if Hitler didn't invade the Balkans"
"Hitler also could have overdosed to death on meth if he decided to not invade the Balkans."
Both are possibilities are equally plausible in a random universe. Someone mapping out World War 2 step by step if Hitler made a different decision is foolishness that should not be put to paper. It definitely shouldn't be published on youtube.
This video is kind of a mess. What is the objective? Where's the chapter line between history and alternative history?
I will say that the term "alternative history" can now has an unfortunate resemblance to "alternate facts." Very not fair to the genre.
Not all alt history is just Hitler wins wish fulfilment. That's not fair to alt history either. Some of it gets pretty wild, like "what if aliens showed up" or "what would WW1 look like if European history had taken this slight turn in the 13th century" butterfly effect stuff. "Modern carrier group shows up in the Pacific in the year 1942" seems like it's just for fun.
Historical fiction is rather broad for me to say whether I like or dislike it.
Dramumentaries have one chance to redeem itself with each production, and that is with healthy disclaimers reminding readers or viewers that yes, some of the content is ahistorical, and which content that is. When it has none of these and presents itself like a dramatized documentary: unforgiveable.
Otherwise educated people coming onto the forums to tell us everything they learned from watching Chernobyl, rofl.
I will say that the term "alternative history" can now has an unfortunate resemblance to "alternate facts." Very not fair to the genre.
Not all alt history is just Hitler wins wish fulfilment. That's not fair to alt history either. Some of it gets pretty wild, like "what if aliens showed up" or "what would WW1 look like if European history had taken this slight turn in the 13th century" butterfly effect stuff. "Modern carrier group shows up in the Pacific in the year 1942" seems like it's just for fun.
Historical fiction is rather broad for me to say whether I like or dislike it.
Dramumentaries have one chance to redeem itself with each production, and that is with healthy disclaimers reminding readers or viewers that yes, some of the content is ahistorical, and which content that is. When it has none of these and presents itself like a dramatized documentary: unforgiveable.
Otherwise educated people coming onto the forums to tell us everything they learned from watching Chernobyl, rofl.
just to repeat that everyone should read svetlana alexievich's book on chernobyl. it is very fucking good. nobel prize-level good.
They should have just given the radiation in the dramumentary a malign intelligence and turned the whole thing into a sci-fi.
But how did Chernobyl affect black people.uziq wrote:
just to repeat that everyone should read svetlana alexievich's book on chernobyl. it is very fucking good. nobel prize-level good.
I bet there's not a single black person in it - racism again.
Fuck Israel
I'm sure the black population between the time/place Sopranos prequel is at, and where/when Chernobyl took place, are vastly different.
zzz. try harder. very, very lazy.Dilbert_X wrote:
But how did Chernobyl affect black people.uziq wrote:
just to repeat that everyone should read svetlana alexievich's book on chernobyl. it is very fucking good. nobel prize-level good.
I bet there's not a single black person in it - racism again.
hardly any culture i consume or discourse i engage in has this 'but what about black people?' aspect. it's a complete red herring.
Red Heat - Peter Hartcher
Bit of a tabloid rant but it does set out a lot of China information in one place and the background and reasoning behind it.
World in Chaos - Excellent Situation! Is an interesting CCP mantra.
Bit of a tabloid rant but it does set out a lot of China information in one place and the background and reasoning behind it.
World in Chaos - Excellent Situation! Is an interesting CCP mantra.
Fuck Israel
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3959
"History of the Russian Revolution" by Trotsky.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History … Revolution
One of those 1000 page history books that you feel accomplished after finishing.
Last entry in Wikipedia's list of great books
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_books
Other book I read by Trotsky is "Their Morals and Ours" or 'Why it is okay to kidnap people if you are a member of the revolutionary proletariat'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History … Revolution
One of those 1000 page history books that you feel accomplished after finishing.
Last entry in Wikipedia's list of great books
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_books
Other book I read by Trotsky is "Their Morals and Ours" or 'Why it is okay to kidnap people if you are a member of the revolutionary proletariat'
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3959
I got the Russian book today. Going to read a bit.
Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2021-10-11 15:02:25)
Dilbert_X wrote:
But how did Chernobyl affect black people.uziq wrote:
just to repeat that everyone should read svetlana alexievich's book on chernobyl. it is very fucking good. nobel prize-level good.
I bet there's not a single black person in it - racism again.
There is little that is all good, or all bad. In the short term, though, the psychoanalytic process of splitting makes things easier, presenting us with simplistic choices as a means of (and defence against) coping with complexity. It is the root of all binary thinking. Literature provides a space for exploring ambivalence and ambiguity, but a bifurcating media culture increasingly places us either in intense opposition to or bonded identification with a person or position.
Radicalisation needs to be looked at in relation to the algorithmic aggregation of online populations (including isolated individuals, which many of them are). Hostility, division and enmity generate clicks. And clicks generate capital.
Books draw you into imaginative worlds; social media draw you into their annihilation, pushing you into groups, or positions, predicated on binary exclusions (even in the name of inclusion). This is the antithesis of entering into empathetic identification with someone not you, who may be like you, or not like you, or both.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3959
What are your thoughts on Trotsky as a writer?
Interesting that him, Lenin, and Stalin were all writers. People usually think of them as brutes but brutes don't publish like they did.
Interesting that him, Lenin, and Stalin were all writers. People usually think of them as brutes but brutes don't publish like they did.
Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2021-10-12 18:18:37)