Anónimo

Unexpectedly Good

Revisado: 04-23-22

I went in because I think the subject matter is interesting, but expected the standard takes from the narrator. Either the course would be out to show how horrible religion (specifically monotheism) is evil, or it would be trying to show how wonderful religion is. Amazingly the narrator took a scholarly view of religion that doesn't just shit on religion while also maintaining an academic distance. It's almost like he was actually trying to be objective. How radical.
Certainly one of the better Great Courses I've listened to.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Great Course

Revisado: 12-09-21

The subject matter is, of course, fascinating. The reviews complaining about "needing to see it" are mostly wrong. Visuals are really only a problem in the moss lecture (moss reproduction is complicated) and the photosynthesis lecture. And you can get through those lectures relatively well without the visuals anyway. The pdf has many of the pictures and if you hear something you really want to see, well... Look it up. You're already listening to this on a device.

The narrator is energetic and enthusiastic. She loves her subject and explains it well. Her jokes are almost never funny, but they are kind of entertaining. It's really head and shoulders over other courses where the narrator stumbles over their words and sounds like they don't want to be there.

Good stuff. I think the only courses I've liked more are Sapolsky's.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

The worst GC I've heard so far

Revisado: 11-30-21

This course will teach you that trials about civil liberties happened, their names, and their outcomes. That's kind of it. It's like a series of incredibly shallow historical vignettes (almost entirely clustered in the last 70 years) with some paltry bits of historical context. I've already noticed a few errors too. Like leaving the most important part of the Scopes trial out and saying the media thought the outcome was good because it was antievolution instead of because the fundamentalists won, but lost a massive PR battle.
The history isn't done particularly well, but the legal side is totally nonexistant. There is nothing about legal context, theories, or impact about the various trials. Just "They decided it this way and now this specific right is this way." It all just feels very anecdotal.
The performance is okay at least. The peofessor get biased at times, but not as bad as he could be. He's focused on the human interest side of things. In another course that might be great, but... I'm aware that slavery is evil. I'd like to hear an impartial account of the trials that impacted the debate over that fact. Not propogandistic moralizing and the clear implication in every case (even ones still considered ambiguous) that one side is the "good guys." It's an understandable annoyance when talking about slavery, Jim Crow, or Lenny Bruce. It's absolutely unprofessional when talking about cases like Yoder, Ellesburg, or Ruby Ridge (I actually agree with his takes on some of these, but that doesn't make his bias acceptable.)
Amazingly the Roe v Wade episode is... Maybe the best one. Where was this moderation and rigor during the rest of the course?
Summary: Shallow. If you want good history, GC has many better courses.
For the same style as this, but actually good, try Wondry's Legal Wars. It even covers a few of the same trials and waaay better than this does.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 9 personas

Fry good. Writing decent. Music bad.

Revisado: 09-06-21

I gotta start off by agreeing with the other reviews about the music. It's not as podcast ruining as they say, but it is annoying. Fortunately you'll mostly stop noticing it about 5 minutes into each episode.
Fry is a gem, as always.
The stories are pretty interesting, but the writing has this habit of being like "The opposite of this thing we think about the Victorian era is true." But the information that's being given is something more like "This wildly repressive era was slightly less repressive than popularly imagined." This is especially true whenever they mention sexuality. Also pretty biased and subjective, but everything written about the Victorians is like that.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Good Stuff

Revisado: 08-31-21

Please make more episodes. This podcast is great. The level of detail and research is wonderful. This show doesn't just do a good job at making you feel like you understand Napoleon as a person, but also covers the general trends of the time quite well.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Nees my fix

Revisado: 08-22-21

Please make more. This is great. The Wondery format of great production value, linear narrative, and immersive pov scenes works really well for these infamous legal cases. The Chicago 8 episodes were particularly good.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Passionfruit has too much passion

Revisado: 07-25-21

I wont say it's as good as the show, but it's a few hours of great stupid fun.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña