CN

An interesting take

Revisado: 07-30-19

This book examines the relationship of WWI in creating the genre of horror and how the effects of WWI continue to be felt today.

Overall it is a good book. Examines aspects and relationships between the war and its effects on people and culture. It does this through the lens of horror (literature, art, movies). It will introduce you to many personalities that have often been forgotten today and how they created the modern genre of horror that we are so familiar with today. At times the book is somewhat repetitive, focusing on a sometimes limited number of movements, giving often shallow treatment to others. For instance, much is said about Surrealism and its relationship to horror, while other art movements that often contain similar elements of the grotesque or shocking receive little treatment. The author makes the important links between WWI and horror to the rise of Fascism and Hitler, but glaringly absent is any discussion of communism. When marxism/communism and revolutionary movements are discussed, they are almost apologetic or completely ignore the brutality and horrors inflicted by them. Meanwhile, in the last hour of the book, the author takes a sideline to discuss US hegemony and involvement in foreign affairs with absolutely no clear discussion of how this relates to horror. Indeed, the Soviets are almost treated as victims of US aggression. Is there really no relationship between WWI, horror, and the murderous regimes of Stalin or other communist states? The inability to connect the books theme of WWI and the horror genre to the sidelines about US foreign affairs and glaring omissions of horror and communism, is why I only give this book three stars.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 18 personas

Well narrated, fascinating topic, poorly written

Revisado: 01-14-13

What would have made Darwin's Ghosts better?

The intellectual history of Evolution of Charles Darwin's forebears is a largely untold story in need of telling. Unfortunately what Rebecca Stott has written is tarnished by her biases and pretentious prose.

This book would have been better served by less pretentious prose, venting of bitter childhood memories, historical revision, and better research into the actual history of Evolutionary thought.

What was most disappointing about Rebecca Stott’s story?

1) In an attempt to make it seem Evolution has a far more ancient history and deeper intellectual roots than what it actually has, Rebecca Stott revises history to include many thinkers who have no contribution to Evolution (Leonardo da Vinci, Al-Jahiz, etc), while excluding many other thinkers, the contemporaries of Darwin, who had actual influence on the development of Evolution. It is far from an accurate history of Evolutionary thought.

2) Stott makes it clear in her preface that she has childhood bone to pick with religion, or rather Christianity, and takes every opportunity to paint religion as a boogeyman (strangely, Islam is treated almost positively on the chapter dealing with Al-Jahiz). Many of the evidence she uses as support is cherry picked and contribute nothing to the topic, while glossing or ignoring the wealth of contradicting evidence. I take no issue with Stott's freedom to express disagreement with religion, but her bitterness comes through from preface through the entirety of the book, distracting from the actual topic. Often it is as if the book is little more than a backdrop for her to vent pent-up childhood anger.

3) She is a overly critical of those who sought recognition for their contributions to Evolution, while forever apologizing for Darwin's obvious failure to recognize his intellectual forbears. In the preface, Powell is portrayed as an envious and bitter man riding on the coattails of Darwin, rather than an intellectual contributor whose work precedes Darwin. Meanwhile, Darwin, who took ~5 years to write the origin, but somehow could not find the time to mention the contributions of others until years later, is given a large list of excuses from poor health to being under too much pressure. Perhaps the most amusing of such excuses is the argument that Darwin simply was not a good historian and thus cannot be blamed for forgetting to recognize the earlier works of others, even though he had created a list of such people before he ever published The Origin.

4) Finally there is the prose. This book often is more historical fiction in line with the bad reenactments one sees on History Channel programs. The book often meanders into lengthy descriptions of the scenery, while replaying fictional descriptions of what Darwin, Aristotle, Al-Jahiz, etc thought, were doing, feeling, etc. Meanwhile the key ideas that each person contributed or didn't contribute is lost and one is left wondering what this has to do with Evolution.

What does Jean Gilpin bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

She does an excellent job, no complaints

You didn’t love this book... but did it have any redeeming qualities?

Other than the subject matter, which is deserving of a good book, no.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 4 personas