Hope to see you kids at today's LDM Fest

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

Haven't read Zinsser. Diamond is a geographic determinist: geography provides the conditions for development and transfer of agriculture and ensuing concentrated human settlements. Where these coincide with the presence of large animals that can be domesticated for food or power, the human populations' immunological response to pathogens becomes increasingly versatile. So disease resistance is a function of geography.

Who is McNeill and what has he written?

 

[Scott Kraft]

I'd add Ian Morris' Why the West Rules (For Now) to the list of geo determinists - with an economist's perspective.

 

[Cliff]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Haven't read Zinsser. Diamond is a geographic determinist: geography provides the conditions for development and transfer of agriculture and ensuing concentrated human settlements. Where these coincide with the presence of large animals that can be domesticated for food or power, the human populations' immunological response to pathogens becomes increasingly versatile. So disease resistance is a function of geography.

Who is McNeill and what has he written?

I agree about Diamond. I think his point about the orientation of the continents is self-evidently important, but easily overlooked. He goes on to make way too much out of it. McNeill is an eminent historian rather than a bacteriologist (Zinsser) or an evolutionary biologist (Diamond). Neither Zinsser nor Diamond is particularly interested in the influence of disease on human societies. For the former, epidemics could be enormously disruptive but did not shape human interaction in any more meaningful way. As you point out, Diamond is a rather rigid geographic determinist. McNeill is not.

If I'm not mistaken, McNeill wrote his dissertation (never published) on the history of the potato. He became famous for his 1963 book The Rise of the West, which remains very much worth reading, though it has dated quite a bit. He presents a sprawling narrative of world history almost entirely in cultural terms. Plagues and Peoples is, in many respects, a sequel; it provides the biological and ecological foundation he left out of the Rise of the West. I especially like his presentation of the precarious equilibrium between microparasitic disease organisms and the "macroparatitism" of large predators, not least other human beings.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Cliff:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Haven't read Zinsser. Diamond is a geographic determinist: geography provides the conditions for development and transfer of agriculture and ensuing concentrated human settlements. Where these coincide with the presence of large animals that can be domesticated for food or power, the human populations' immunological response to pathogens becomes increasingly versatile. So disease resistance is a function of geography.

Who is McNeill and what has he written?

I agree about Diamond. I think his point about the orientation of the continents is self-evidently important, but easily overlooked. He goes on to make way too much out of it. McNeill is an eminent historian rather than a bacteriologist (Zinsser) or an evolutionary biologist (Diamond). Neither Zinsser nor Diamond is particularly interested in the influence of disease on human societies. For the former, epidemics could be enormously disruptive but did not shape human interaction in any more meaningful way. As you point out, Diamond is a rather rigid geographic determinist. McNeill is not.

If I'm not mistaken, McNeill wrote his dissertation (never published) on the history of the potato. He became famous for his 1963 book The Rise of the West, which remains very much worth reading, though it has dated quite a bit. He presents a sprawling narrative of world history almost entirely in cultural terms. Plagues and Peoples is, in many respects, a sequel; it provides the biological and ecological foundation he left out of the Rise of the West. I especially like his presentation of the precarious equilibrium between microparasitic disease organisms and the "macroparatitism" of large predators, not least other human beings.

I agree with your criticisms of Diamond, but they pale in comparison to mine: he's a lousy prose stylist. Slogging through his tedious, repetitive arguments was almost more than I could bear, despite my being interested in the arguments he was making. I'll have to check Plagues and Peoples out as it sounds right up my alley.

Thanks!
Mark Lipton

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

I hate to be the guy who brings down the curve, but I thought Diamond's book was a good project. True, the tone was a bit patronizing, but I can think of at least three plausible reasons why Diamond would write that way on purpose. First, his overall idea works on a very large scale, sweeping up data and methods from a variety of disciplines. In order to maintain focus on this big idea, it would be a reasonable expository strategy to to keep the general tone as simple as possible, and carefully relate each new piece of material back to this idea. Second, related, because his argument is interdisciplinary, maintaining a kind of laborious simplicity between its various bits would aid him when he has to respond to inevitable detailed criticism by specialists in each the fields from which he draws evidence.

Third, one of his motivations in taking on the problem of European cultural dominance over the past five centuries is to provide a cogent alternative to points of view that assume (or infer) inherent racially-correlated differences in intelligence or character. If he's addressing this audience - with intent to persuade, not ridicule - then a special effort at simplicity is apt, apart from any other consideration.

I also thought Collapse was worthwhile. I'll look around for McNeill's books - thanks, Cliff. Pomaranz, too: I've been trying to get a handle on political economy forever.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I hate to be the guy who brings down the curve, but I thought Diamond's book was a good project.

Ian,
Don't get me wrong: I'm not unhappy that I read either Guns, Germs and Steel or Collapse, but that doesn't stop me from wishing that they'd been written (or edited) in a more concise and pointed manner. Contrasting Diamond's tedious prose with Michael Pollan's in Botany of Desire or Omnivore's Dilemma makes the point far better than I can.

Mark Lipton

 

[Cliff]

That's not a fair fight. Diamond does not write for a living.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

You're right, of course; but Diamond's project is much more formal than Pollans' (at least OD - I haven't read BoD), and was written to stand up to more peer scrutiny, wouldn't you say? Perhaps you should compare him to Gibbons, instead :). Collapse was the same way, FWIW.

 

[Cliff]

I don't know about peer review. Diamond's book is so ambitious that specialists don't take it terribly seriously. McNeill is one of the very few ever to pull it off, though he did not write for such a popular audience.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Cliff:
That's not a fair fight. Diamond does not write for a living.

With the caveat that we academics in many ways do write for our livings, I'd still argue that not being a professional doesn't absolve him of writing clearly for his audience. Even if we concede that it's not his job to write readable prose, WTF does he have an editor for if not to clean up his writing? I'm not a professional reader, either (wouldn't that be a great job, though? I suppose that's what book critics are) but I still found myself nearly screaming at the book at times when reading it.

Mark Lipton

 

[Yule Kim]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Cliff:
That's not a fair fight. Diamond does not write for a living.

With the caveat that we academics in many ways do write for our livings, I'd still argue that not being a professional doesn't absolve him of writing clearly for his audience. Even if we concede that it's not his job to write readable prose, WTF does he have an editor for if not to clean up his writing? I'm not a professional reader, either (wouldn't that be a great job, though? I suppose that's what book critics are) but I still found myself nearly screaming at the book at times when reading it.

Mark Lipton

If only Judith Butler, et al. would take this sound advice to heart.

 

[Cliff]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I hate to be the guy who brings down the curve, but I thought Diamond's book was a good project. True, the tone was a bit patronizing, but I can think of at least three plausible reasons why Diamond would write that way on purpose. First, his overall idea works on a very large scale, sweeping up data and methods from a variety of disciplines. In order to maintain focus on this big idea, it would be a reasonable expository strategy to to keep the general tone as simple as possible, and carefully relate each new piece of material back to this idea. Second, related, because his argument is interdisciplinary, maintaining a kind of laborious simplicity between its various bits would aid him when he has to respond to inevitable detailed criticism by specialists in each the fields from which he draws evidence.

Third, one of his motivations in taking on the problem of European cultural dominance over the past five centuries is to provide a cogent alternative to points of view that assume (or infer) inherent racially-correlated differences in intelligence or character. If he's addressing this audience - with intent to persuade, not ridicule - then a special effort at simplicity is apt, apart from any other consideration.

I also thought Collapse was worthwhile. I'll look around for McNeill's books - thanks, Cliff. Pomaranz, too: I've been trying to get a handle on political economy forever.

I'm with Mark on the question of Diamond's deficiencies as a prose stylist. I put people to sleep for a living, and I found his book quite a slog, with a great deal of self-indulgent, unnecessary detail. He has a simple but compelling explanation for why the people that ended up dominating the globe in the nineteenth and twentieth century came from Eurasia. But he has nothing to say about how and why any group was ever able to do so, or why it was the English, as opposed to the Japanese, Chinese, or Indians who managed that breakthrough first. That question is Pomeranz' point of departure.

Have you ever read Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery? It is an old (1944) classic that informs a great deal of recent writing on the relationship between the industrial West and the rest of the world.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Cliff:
That's not a fair fight. Diamond does not write for a living.

With the caveat that we academics in many ways do write for our livings, I'd still argue that not being a professional doesn't absolve him of writing clearly for his audience. Even if we concede that it's not his job to write readable prose, WTF does he have an editor for if not to clean up his writing? I'm not a professional reader, either (wouldn't that be a great job, though? I suppose that's what book critics are) but I still found myself nearly screaming at the book at times when reading it.

Mark Lipton

I probably read it in bits and pieces over too long a period to be as appalled as you were. But I was arguing that thinking about his intended audience might help to accept the way he wrote. You are pretty close to a professional reader, after all; if he wrote with folks like you in mind, Diamond would have limited himself to a small, very select audience, wouldn't you say?

 

[Cliff]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Cliff:
That's not a fair fight. Diamond does not write for a living.

With the caveat that we academics in many ways do write for our livings, I'd still argue that not being a professional doesn't absolve him of writing clearly for his audience. Even if we concede that it's not his job to write readable prose, WTF does he have an editor for if not to clean up his writing? I'm not a professional reader, either (wouldn't that be a great job, though? I suppose that's what book critics are) but I still found myself nearly screaming at the book at times when reading it.

Mark Lipton

Didn't see this. I completely agree. Alas, if you talk to an academic editor, my guess is that he or she will tell you that cleaning up prose isn't part of their job. We have been impressed enough with someone's ideals of science that we merely present our research findings. Writing well is a bonus but not the key to a successful publishing career in a university humanities or social science department.

Yes, we need to publish, lest we perish. But we are also beaten into writing in specific, inscrutable styles, to keep the riffraff out.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I hate to be the guy who brings down the curve, but I thought Diamond's book was a good project.

Ian,
Don't get me wrong: I'm not unhappy that I read either Guns, Germs and Steel or Collapse, but that doesn't stop me from wishing that they'd been written (or edited) in a more concise and pointed manner. Contrasting Diamond's tedious prose with Michael Pollan's in Botany of Desire or Omnivore's Dilemma makes the point far better than I can.

Mark Lipton

I find Omnivore's Dilemna to have some of the same repetitiveness as Diamond. In fact, he repeats an exact sentence from Botany in Omnivore.

As you know, I could finish either Guns or Collapse despite the fact that I liked both. Desperately in need of editing. He probably just intellectually overpowered them.

Omnivore was a bore, as Sharon would say.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by VLM:

I find Omnivore's Dilemna to have some of the same repetitiveness as Diamond. In fact, he repeats an exact sentence from Botany in Omnivore.

As you know, I could finish either Guns or Collapse despite the fact that I liked both. Desperately in need of editing. He probably just intellectually overpowered them.

Omnivore was a bore, as Sharon would say.

Yeah, I greatly preferred Botany for what I considered to be the novelty of its thesis (it may not be so novel, thereby just proving that I don't get out enough). Omnivore was also more of a polemic than Botany had been, or perhaps his agenda just wasn't so well hidden. Still, compared to GG&S or Collapse, Omnivore is a fair page turner.

Mark Lipton

 

[Brian C]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by VLM:

I find Omnivore's Dilemna to have some of the same repetitiveness as Diamond. In fact, he repeats an exact sentence from Botany in Omnivore.

As you know, I could finish either Guns or Collapse despite the fact that I liked both. Desperately in need of editing. He probably just intellectually overpowered them.

Omnivore was a bore, as Sharon would say.

Yeah, I greatly preferred Botany for what I considered to be the novelty of its thesis (it may not be so novel, thereby just proving that I don't get out enough). Omnivore was also more of a polemic than Botany had been, or perhaps his agenda just wasn't so well hidden. Still, compared to GG&S or Collapse, Omnivore is a fair page turner.

Mark Lipton

Agreed, Botany really made me think, Omnivore I couldn't really get through.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Brian C:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by VLM:

I find Omnivore's Dilemna to have some of the same repetitiveness as Diamond. In fact, he repeats an exact sentence from Botany in Omnivore.

As you know, I could finish either Guns or Collapse despite the fact that I liked both. Desperately in need of editing. He probably just intellectually overpowered them.

Omnivore was a bore, as Sharon would say.

Yeah, I greatly preferred Botany for what I considered to be the novelty of its thesis (it may not be so novel, thereby just proving that I don't get out enough). Omnivore was also more of a polemic than Botany had been, or perhaps his agenda just wasn't so well hidden. Still, compared to GG&S or Collapse, Omnivore is a fair page turner.

Mark Lipton

Agreed, Botany really made me think, Omnivore I couldn't really get through.

+1!

 

[Lou Kessler]

I nominate without fear of contradiction this thread has drifted further in contents from it's original purpose than any other thread in Disorder history.
The books described sound like a good read but I've been concentrating on reading about wall street and it's relationship to the financial mess we have in this country.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by VLM:

I find Omnivore's Dilemna to have some of the same repetitiveness as Diamond. In fact, he repeats an exact sentence from Botany in Omnivore.

As you know, I could finish either Guns or Collapse despite the fact that I liked both. Desperately in need of editing. He probably just intellectually overpowered them.

Omnivore was a bore, as Sharon would say.

Yeah, I greatly preferred Botany for what I considered to be the novelty of its thesis (it may not be so novel, thereby just proving that I don't get out enough). Omnivore was also more of a polemic than Botany had been, or perhaps his agenda just wasn't so well hidden. Still, compared to GG&S or Collapse, Omnivore is a fair page turner.

Mark Lipton

I thought the narrative in OD fell apart when he got to the hunting-gathering meal - became too personal and lost its connection with the conceptual theme I thought he'd been building up to that point. Should read Desire,I guess.

The flick King Corn is a nice adjunct to the first section in OD, BTW.

The books described sound like a good read but I've been concentrating on reading about wall street and it's relationship to the financial mess we have in this country.

Have you read Henry Kaufman's Wall Street Memoir? He more or less predicted the debacle about seven years early, based on USG's failure to keep up with derivative markets and regulate them. Pretty lucid, with a lot of personal history woven in. Also, have you seen Inside Job yet? The trailers look good, but it hasn't popped up in our area yet.