I read The Tiananmen Papers circa 2003. It's dry but it's primary material, allowing you to make your own judgments about how Chinese politics works. I think i

I read The Tiananmen Papers circa 2003. It's dry but it's primary material, allowing you to make your own judgments about how Chinese politics works. I think it's served me well, and I don't think I've missed out on any insights offered by packaged, scholarly narratives. Precisely because it was primary material it's aged well, even with the huge changes in Chinese society and government since then. OTOH, I had studied International Politics in undergraduate, and took several classes on SE Asian history and politics. And I also had done some semi-professional research regarding exports controls on supercomputing technology--a big issue back when Linux Beowulf clusters were hot. So I had some background knowledge going in. Still, there's much to be said for primary material. I know there's some debate about the selection of what went into The Tiananmen Papers, but doing a deep dive on a narrow issue is more useful to understanding the broader society than you'd think, even if the material selection is skewed. For similar reasons, I feel like I learned a tremendous amount about Chilean political history and culture, more than all other sources combined (except perhaps contemporary Chilean newsprint) reading "Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende's Chile". There are fundamental truths about a culture that are revealed by the fine details of how historical events unfold, independent of the larger context (i.e. Allende's soft socialist revolution, or brutally paranoid Chinese state repression).