16 ms·

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 pre

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.

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.