>introduction is better than the rest of the book
>>24969593>pic related
>>24969593Pic related. Not because the technical innards aren't good, but it makes the rough outlines of a sweeping critique in the introduction and then doesn't really follow up on it later. This is a very common thing with philosophy books. They make big claims to situate themselves in the world, to explain their relevance, and then default into minute details and technical distinctions.
>>24969593Happens whenever Harlan Ellison introduces a book.
>>24969665Yeah he's great whenever I see his name I know which books to avoid
right here
>reading the introductionmight as well read the wikipedia page too
this book on microhistory was a very sad example. the first chapter gives a very good explanation of how to write good microhistory and is even a great introduction to the subject but then the microhistory of the book itself is very uninpressive. It is clearly written by someone with a great amount of knowledge in the subject and all the beats and technical requirements for a great book are present but it fails to achieve its promise, the book has no emotion or narrative sense and feels very lifeless as a result. It is very interesting that someone could be so well learned but at the end still lack that writing talent that makes books like The Cheese and the Worm and The Return of Martin Guerre so great. the author has no sense for what makes microhistory unique and cannot compensate lack of writing talent with technical knowledge.
