GGS was a lousy book

[TCO]

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]

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

[Maniac]

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]

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.

[Dinner]

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]

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]

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.

[Dinner]

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]

Do you surf?

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

[VetLegion]

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]

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]

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]

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

[S. Kroeze]

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]

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.