5 ms·

Jill Lepore’s These Truths was the best history book this year. Perhaps this decade.

kashyapc 8y ago
When you make such extraordinary subjective claims, please also bother write a small blurb as to what you found so enthralling about it. Because from I read, people are calling out this book out for its terrible bloopers and the author not doing his homework on facts.
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  The author, Jill Lepore, has been called out for not doing her homework on facts.
  - evtothedev 8y ago
    You should give the book a shot. It's received some pretty[0] killer[1] reviews[2] from sources more authoritative than an Amazon rando. And even if you go pretty far right[3], the reviews stay largely positive. [0] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/08/jill-lepore-american-revolutions/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/08/jill-lepore-amer... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/books/review/jill-lepore-these-truths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/books/review/jill-lepore-... [2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/sc-books-these-truths-jill-lepore-0912-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/sc-books-the... [3] https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/11/17/liberal-history-of-the-u-s/ https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/11/17/liberal-h...
    - bobwaycott 8y ago
      You appear to be alleging there is no value or merit in the pointing out of blatant factual errors by an “Amazon rando”. Lepore is well-known. It is unsurprising there would be “killer reviews” of her latest work in various publications. I’m a former—undergraduate and graduate—student of history. That Lepore’s latest work contains argument based on factual errors is a problem for a history. That there are effusive reviews does little to negate calling out factual errors and omissions. That an “Amazon rando” is one of many individuals citing the factual errors provides little insight into which review is more authoritative. In history, the facts themselves are authoritative—and far more so than the sweeping prose within which one writes about or reviews them. If a history can’t get simple facts right, the work starts to look lazy—despite its page count. When there’s a trend of factual errors and omissions—especially when the analysis and interpretation of history is built upon such errors and omissions—it severely weakens credibility. That’s not to say the book isn’t a delightful romp through the past, but a history demands diligent care with facts.
      - evtothedev 8y ago
        But how do you know the rando is right? As in, aren't his corrections just as likely to factually mistaken as the original? The Amazon reviewer doesn't site sourcse. Since I'm not a history, I don't feel comfortable judging accuracy. Instead, I would trust a historian's peers writing reviews in trusted publications.
  - kashyapc 8y ago
    Thanks for correcting. I briefly did pause to think it could be a 'her' (as I recognized Jill is commonly a female name), and even went as far as doing a half-hearted second skim of the Amazon URL, but still I lazily went with what my buggy "system 1"[+] endorsed. [+] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Numberwang 8y ago
Better than Landet utanför: Sverige och kriget 1939-1940 by Henrik Berggren? Really?
keiferski 8y ago
Sounds like this book has a serious number of issues. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/B07BLKWBYT/ref=mw_dp_cr https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/B07BLKWBYT/ref=mw_dp_cr
- vo2maxer 8y ago
  Seems that the reviewer himself, S. J. Snyder, attributes a number of errors just based on his interpretative ideological slant.
  - bobwaycott 8y ago
    I read the whole review. There’s nothing from Snyder that strikes me as an ideological critique. Each point is tied to factual errors leading to incorrect analysis and interpretation/presentation. There are a couple other reviews alongside Snyder that detail more factual and interpretive errors. What ideological slant are you seeing in Snyder’s critique?

When you make such extraordinary subjective claims, please also bother write a small blurb as to what you found so enthralling about it. Because from I read, people are calling out this book out for its terrible bloopers and the author not doing his homework on facts.

bobwaycott 8y ago
The author, Jill Lepore, has been called out for not doing her homework on facts.
- evtothedev 8y ago
  You should give the book a shot. It's received some pretty[0] killer[1] reviews[2] from sources more authoritative than an Amazon rando. And even if you go pretty far right[3], the reviews stay largely positive. [0] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/08/jill-lepore-american-revolutions/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/08/jill-lepore-amer... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/books/review/jill-lepore-these-truths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/books/review/jill-lepore-... [2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/sc-books-these-truths-jill-lepore-0912-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/sc-books-the... [3] https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/11/17/liberal-history-of-the-u-s/ https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/11/17/liberal-h...
  - bobwaycott 8y ago
    You appear to be alleging there is no value or merit in the pointing out of blatant factual errors by an “Amazon rando”. Lepore is well-known. It is unsurprising there would be “killer reviews” of her latest work in various publications. I’m a former—undergraduate and graduate—student of history. That Lepore’s latest work contains argument based on factual errors is a problem for a history. That there are effusive reviews does little to negate calling out factual errors and omissions. That an “Amazon rando” is one of many individuals citing the factual errors provides little insight into which review is more authoritative. In history, the facts themselves are authoritative—and far more so than the sweeping prose within which one writes about or reviews them. If a history can’t get simple facts right, the work starts to look lazy—despite its page count. When there’s a trend of factual errors and omissions—especially when the analysis and interpretation of history is built upon such errors and omissions—it severely weakens credibility. That’s not to say the book isn’t a delightful romp through the past, but a history demands diligent care with facts.
    - evtothedev 8y ago
      But how do you know the rando is right? As in, aren't his corrections just as likely to factually mistaken as the original? The Amazon reviewer doesn't site sourcse. Since I'm not a history, I don't feel comfortable judging accuracy. Instead, I would trust a historian's peers writing reviews in trusted publications.
- kashyapc 8y ago
  Thanks for correcting. I briefly did pause to think it could be a 'her' (as I recognized Jill is commonly a female name), and even went as far as doing a half-hearted second skim of the Amazon URL, but still I lazily went with what my buggy "system 1"[+] endorsed. [+] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Numberwang 8y ago

Better than Landet utanför: Sverige och kriget 1939-1940 by Henrik Berggren? Really?

keiferski 8y ago

Sounds like this book has a serious number of issues. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/B07BLKWBYT/ref=mw_dp_cr https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/B07BLKWBYT/ref=mw_dp_cr

vo2maxer 8y ago
Seems that the reviewer himself, S. J. Snyder, attributes a number of errors just based on his interpretative ideological slant.
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  I read the whole review. There’s nothing from Snyder that strikes me as an ideological critique. Each point is tied to factual errors leading to incorrect analysis and interpretation/presentation. There are a couple other reviews alongside Snyder that detail more factual and interpretive errors. What ideological slant are you seeing in Snyder’s critique?