Show Library: Pseudointellectual Books That, in Fact, Suck

[Fishmonger]

[ QUOTE ]
I also hated reading house of the spirits by allende

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really good book. Did you read it in English? I think a bit gets lost in the translation.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My nomination is Guns, Germs and Steel. Totally effed politically correct thesis about how societies evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen. In addition to the crappy thesis, some parts of it are nigh unreadable (even drier than a textbook). It could have been extremely interesting if Diamond's agenda hadn't interfered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I guess it's politically correct to suggest that access to plentiful food and large, domesticatable animals would have anything to do with a society being able to advance.

[sparkyjones]

Yeah it was an english version. I'm sure it's much better in Spanish. Despite me disliking it, I had a strange admiration for Esteban Trueba

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread hurts my head.

I think rand is good but overrated.

Great gatsby, Catch 22, Heart of darkness are some of my favorite books. All of you people "fronting" can go to hell.

-JP

[/ QUOTE ]

So your argument is basically they're wrong because you like these books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats so hard to understand? I have superior taste/reasoning/likes and dislikes than everyone else, therefore what I say is right, and everyone who disbelieves me can go to hell. Kind of like god and the whole christianity deal, you understand that concept right?

-JP

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My nomination is Guns, Germs and Steel. Totally effed politically correct thesis about how societies evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen. In addition to the crappy thesis, some parts of it are nigh unreadable (even drier than a textbook). It could have been extremely interesting if Diamond's agenda hadn't interfered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I guess it's politically correct to suggest that access to plentiful food and large, domesticatable animals would have anything to do with a society being able to advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially since Diamond goes out of his way in the introduction to state that the book is not an apologia for colonialism and that he in no way is implying that it was somehow right for the Europeans to use their guns, germs, and steel the way they did.

Honestly, I think a lot of the PC criticism of this book that has gone around amounts to a simple dynamic:

A large group of academics in a particular discipline (anthropology) had staked out their territory.

Somebody outside that discipline writes a book that demonstrates that they have missed the forest for the trees in a fundamental and provocative way.

The people in that discipline are threatened and feel compelled to trash him with the most available weaponry, allegations of Eurocentrism and colonialist sympathies.

Edit: Oops, didn't realize that others in the thread were criticizing him for being "too politically correct." Well, that runs counter to most of the debate about this book, and I guess it just shows that you can't win either way.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My nomination is Guns, Germs and Steel. Totally effed politically correct thesis about how societies evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen. In addition to the crappy thesis, some parts of it are nigh unreadable (even drier than a textbook). It could have been extremely interesting if Diamond's agenda hadn't interfered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I guess it's politically correct to suggest that access to plentiful food and large, domesticatable animals would have anything to do with a society being able to advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially since Diamond goes out of his way in the introduction to state that the book is not an apologia for colonialism and that he in no way is implying that it was somehow right for the Europeans to use their guns, germs, and steel the way they did.

Honestly, I think a lot of the PC criticism of this book that has gone around amounts to a simple dynamic:

A large group of academics in a particular discipline (anthropology) had staked out their territory.

Somebody outside that discipline writes a book that demonstrates that they have missed the forest for the trees in a fundamental and provocative way.

The people in that discipline are threatened and feel compelled to trash him with the most available weaponry, allegations of Eurocentrism and colonialist sympathies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam HARRIS?

Sign my books.

-JP

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My nomination is Guns, Germs and Steel. Totally effed politically correct thesis about how societies evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen. In addition to the crappy thesis, some parts of it are nigh unreadable (even drier than a textbook). It could have been extremely interesting if Diamond's agenda hadn't interfered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I guess it's politically correct to suggest that access to plentiful food and large, domesticatable animals would have anything to do with a society being able to advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially since Diamond goes out of his way in the introduction to state that the book is not an apologia for colonialism and that he in no way is implying that it was somehow right for the Europeans to use their guns, germs, and steel the way they did.

Honestly, I think a lot of the PC criticism of this book that has gone around amounts to a simple dynamic:

A large group of academics in a particular discipline (anthropology) had staked out their territory.

Somebody outside that discipline writes a book that demonstrates that they have missed the forest for the trees in a fundamental and provocative way.

The people in that discipline are threatened and feel compelled to trash him with the most available weaponry, allegations of Eurocentrism and colonialist sympathies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam HARRIS?

Sign my books.

-JP

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, sorry but not me.

Was that book The End of Faith good? I haven't read it.

[fish2plus2]

someone recommends jared diamond to me. i go on amazon and see he has about 50 books published on the same topic. this is a big sign to me that he probably sucks.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
I promote David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest" as my own candidate for overrated. I realize it's possible that I'm just not intelligent enough to fully comprehend the book, but to me it seems like he's just trying too hard to be Thomas Pynchon with footnotes, and failing miserably , and his characters strike me as completely unrealistic. (And I actually like writers such as Umberto Eco and Neal Stephenson)

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jeff W]

Q: regarding Guns, Germs and Steel. Why did the germs of colonialists kill the natives and not vice versa?

To Dare and to Conquer has a compelling counter-thesis: The successful conquest of the Incas and the Aztecs, for example, owed more to tactics and strategy than technology and biology.