What Are You Reading? Part Deux

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Dana Jean

Dirty Pirate Hooker, The Return
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
53,634
236,697
The High Seas
It's just a novella. :)

(Steve's definition of novella differs from everyone else)
When it got picked for the reading group, I thought, no sweat, I'll just whip this right out. And then I looked at it. Now, if I would've had time, I could've quickly made my way through it, but life gets in the way!

I'll get caught up.
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
Reading two books at the moment. Jurassic Park by crichton. Always enjoyable, and a history of the first world war by swedish historian Smedberg. Is just 1914 yet but so far so good. The difficulty with histories about things that are rather wellknown, like WW 1 and 2, is not really what happened but rather to keep a good balance. You have to have the political history (the political leaders what they did and did not and why if known), the military history (the generals and other leaders of armies decisions) and the common man history (that is the common soldier in the trenches and civil population and their experiences) . To keep the balance of these three aspects is difficult, some historians leans heavily on the military history without giving proper room (or even skipping) the political decisions that caused them and others do the opposite. Some focus so on the common man that they make absolutely clear what people had to endure without making it very clear why. To keep the balance is therefore very important if you want to write an overall history. And needless to say, you can not be to partial. You describe what happened you do not say that side is good and that side is evil. If you are any good at describing the events the reader can judge for him or herself.
 

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Reading two books at the moment. Jurassic Park by crichton. Always enjoyable, and a history of the first world war by swedish historian Smedberg. Is just 1914 yet but so far so good. The difficulty with histories about things that are rather wellknown, like WW 1 and 2, is not really what happened but rather to keep a good balance. You have to have the political history (the political leaders what they did and did not and why if known), the military history (the generals and other leaders of armies decisions) and the common man history (that is the common soldier in the trenches and civil population and their experiences) . To keep the balance of these three aspects is difficult, some historians leans heavily on the military history without giving proper room (or even skipping) the political decisions that caused them and others do the opposite. Some focus so on the common man that they make absolutely clear what people had to endure without making it very clear why. To keep the balance is therefore very important if you want to write an overall history. And needless to say, you can not be to partial. You describe what happened you do not say that side is good and that side is evil. If you are any good at describing the events the reader can judge for him or herself.
Have you read The Library Policeman? (one of the novellas in Four Past Midnight) - we will be discussing it tomorrow here on the Board :)

You are cordially invited to weigh in :reading:
 

Edward John

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
4,004
18,785
23
Reading two books at the moment. Jurassic Park by crichton. Always enjoyable, and a history of the first world war by swedish historian Smedberg. Is just 1914 yet but so far so good. The difficulty with histories about things that are rather wellknown, like WW 1 and 2, is not really what happened but rather to keep a good balance. You have to have the political history (the political leaders what they did and did not and why if known), the military history (the generals and other leaders of armies decisions) and the common man history (that is the common soldier in the trenches and civil population and their experiences) . To keep the balance of these three aspects is difficult, some historians leans heavily on the military history without giving proper room (or even skipping) the political decisions that caused them and others do the opposite. Some focus so on the common man that they make absolutely clear what people had to endure without making it very clear why. To keep the balance is therefore very important if you want to write an overall history. And needless to say, you can not be to partial. You describe what happened you do not say that side is good and that side is evil. If you are any good at describing the events the reader can judge for him or herself.
Wasn't Sweden neutral during WW1?
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
Wasn't Sweden neutral during WW1?
Yeah, we were. There existed written plans from both the british and the germans to establish armybases in both Norway, Sweden and Denmark though. It was an important period in our domestic politics though. The swedish king was a relative of the german emperor so wanted to ally with the germans. The parlament would have none of it and the outcome was that the parlament stripped the king of the last remnant of power he had. So WW1 is the last time a swedish king tried to play a major political role.