Douglas

One- dimensional history

Revisado: 09-14-24

The narration is very good through even the narrator seemed to flag with the author’s seeming non-ending critique of the “casket letters.” As history, the book has two flaws--one major and one reflective of contemporary history scholarship.

The major flaw is that the narrative is one-dimensional with its almost exclusive focus, albeit well researched and organized, on. Mary. !6th century European feudal societies were marked by a multiplicity of power centers—the monarch no longer absolute; a multiplicity of “lords” with varying degrees of wealth, military might and influence; and religious leaders whether of the Roman church or the Reform. The author merely refers to “the lords” or sometimes “the Protestant lords” as if they were fungible. To understand the politics of Scotland in which Mary sought to rule, you need to know much more about the Scots families (Douglas, Lennox, Murray, etc.), the bases for their power, including wealth and military, or lack thereof, their religious leanings and connections to religious leaders of the time and to England or France.

The second flaw is looking at 16th century history through 21st century glasses. The author's condemnation by current moral standards of the 16th century treatment of rape victims in connection with the rape of Mary by Bothwell is well founded but irrelevant to 16th century history. Her central thesis is that Mary was the victim of men manipulating the strings of power and thus discriminated against based on her sex. Certainly the status of women was different in the 16th century--for example, there were no women at all, much less a Nancy Pelosi, in privy councils or parliaments. However, her thesis that male discrimination was the cause of Mary's difficulties is somewhat diminished by the important role of powerful women such as Elizabeth, Catherine de Medici, Mary of Guise and mothers who sought to further the fortunes of their families through promotion of sons and daughters in her royal court.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Mish Mash

Revisado: 09-27-21

The author is light years of U space beyond me in technical knowledge and imagination. But his application of those talents has created a mish mash. The characters, none of which are developed into a meaningful whole,
• are a mish mash of organic and inorganic parts,
• are each endowed with a built-in supercomputer and access to an ever more super computers processing infinite streams of data the content of which is never revealed,
• have inherent in their physical beings a mish mash of highly destructive weapons and control over even more potent weapons which they use with abandon.
The plot seems to be that the universe is a nasty and mean place threatened by remnants of a mish mash of “civilizations” present, past and future the only solution to which is blasting away whatever comes along.
The narration is okay except when it comes to the frequent and lengthy dialogues among characters. That is reminiscent of a grade school play with the actors so concerned about remembering their lines that their delivery is a flat monologue.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Superficial

Revisado: 02-15-20

A sampling--the lectures on Washington, Jackson and Johnson--led me to drop the course. Professor Lichtman's coverage of the issues faced by the "great" presidents is superficial. For example, the existence of a national bank was a significant issue in Washington's tenure and a major one in Jackson's. Other than general references to national vs state currency and Jackson's distrust of greenbacks, there is no explanation of what a national bank was or was not (a Wells Fargo, a Fed or something else?) and why some supported and some opposed the concept. Since we learn little about the substantive merits of the presidents' accomplishments, we are left with the professors' energetic adjectives and adverbs about how great a president was and his odd measure of "greatness". A president was "great" if he accrued, expanded and used executive power even at the expense of the Congress and/or the Judiciary. By this standard, Professor Lichtman will have to add two presidents in his next update--President Obama in his second term and, especially, President Trump in his first term.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Excellent

Revisado: 02-15-20

A long period of English history is very well organized and presented. I do have one wish. Although I recognize that not every subject can be covered in a survey, I wish that Professor Paxton had spent time on the organization, development and role of guilds, both mercantile and building. domestically and internationally.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Informative but incomplete

Revisado: 11-22-19

As a neophyte on Egyptian history, I learned a great deal from Prof. Brier’s easy to listen to lectures. However, I am left with a large gap—the socio-economic-religious-political structure of the Egyptian state at any time and over time. Prof. Brier attributes the greatness of Egypt to a bountiful food supply, a centralized state and powerful kings. However, no king, no matter how autocratic, rules in a vacuum. Starting at the bottom, who grew the grain, who built the monuments and temples? Were they slaves, serfs, farmers or something else? Who owned and collected the grain and decided how it would be distributed? Who organized the laborers and craftsmen who built the monuments? Was there a royal (other than those with kingly blood) or wealthy class? What power did they have? How did the priests of the many gods and temples relate to each other, to other power centers and to the king? How was the army organized? Who was in the king’s inner circle and what power or influence did they have? Perhaps there are few answers to these and other pertinent structural questions, but even knowing those limitations would be helpful.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Only if you are already familiar with the history

Revisado: 08-25-18

I am a history buff and European history in the 19th Century is a gap I wanted to fill. Professor Steinberg prefaces the course with an admission that he is not sure if focusing on historical figures rather than events works. It does not. The disjointed and often superficial bios of 19th century figures added nothing I could piece together of what actually happened or why it did. I suffered through the whole course but am no more enlightened than before I started it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Strained Narration

Revisado: 08-25-18

Good pot boiler story though not Flynn's best. Narrator tries to do too much be creating different voices for the many characters. Some are comical. A few are irritating. Did not deter me from finishing the story.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Amusing

Revisado: 09-27-17

Enjoyable largely because of the demon Bartimaeus' perverse sense of humor. The narration is very good though Simon has some difficulty vvoicing a 12-year old boy. The plot is a bit thin but does hold attention. Not sure if I will do any more in the series.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Beyond tedious

Revisado: 06-25-17

This book wasn’t for you, but who do you think might enjoy it more?

Turtledove is alway wordy.. This takes the cake. Never ending repetitive philoshophic debates and self-reflections. Little action. Not even sure cutting it from 17 hrs. to 7 hrs. would help. Sufered through it just to finish series.

Cannnot think of anyone.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

mediocre

Revisado: 03-21-17

the use of many narrators was disconcerting and the dialogue among the characters was tedious

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña