Grand unified books thread

[The Brain]

I'm reading The Children of Ash and Elm: A History of the Vikings, by Neil Price. The author takes a look at the Vikings and tries to understand them unfettered by stereotypes or prejudice.

I can't really say that it's bad, it does try to bring a Scandinavian perspective to the Viking world, but it's a bit weird. He sometimes jumps to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence, and he often doesn't explain HOW we know something he claims we know. For instance he claims that the Vikings were totally different from the rest of Europe in their beliefs in little people and similar. Really? Other peoples didn't believe in any supernatural (non-Christian) beings? We know enough about what ordinary people believed in the Dark Ages in different countries to say anything like that?

He talks about how the Vikings had slavery and describes the horrors of slavery in some detail. He does mention that the rest of the known world also practiced slavery, but doesn't say anything about any similarities or differences. And he points out that slavery's bad mkay? Wait, being a slave sucked? Like, no way!!! Whowuddathunkit.

He mentions one of the few instances where remains of people we know to be slaves have been found. The proof? They were found in the part of a burned building that was a stable. Captain Flimsy strikes again.

In the 30 page introduction (!), he finds time for a sermon about the inaccuracy of the Nazi view of the Vikings (for readers who are that kind of Viking fans). I felt like offering the author a deal: how about you don't assume that I'm a Nazi and I won't assume that you are one?

[mongers]

'Hothouse'  by Brian Aldiss, well worth a read.

And given it's a sci-fi story even older than I am, it's aged a hell of a lot better me.

[grumbler]

Just finished Joe Abercrombie's The Age of Madness trilogy, set in the same world as his First Law trilogy - in fact, it's "First Law, the Next Generation" and features the children of the First Law characters, for the most part.  Sand dan Glotka's daughter, King Jezel's son, The Dogman's daughter, etc.

I'm glad I read it, but must admit that there were times when I wasn't sure that I was glad I was reading it.  The characters are better-drawn than in the first trilogy, but much less likable.  In fact, there was only one genuinely likable main character in the series, and only one genuinely likable supporting character.  When you see the world through a given character's eyes, you want them to succeed.  But, looking at that character from another POV shows them to be so weak-charactered that you don't care anymore if they live or die.

I thought that Abercrombie's world-building wasn't as good this time around.  The series takes place 20 years after the first series, but in those 20 years they have gone from late medieval technology (just discovered gunpowder) to early-nineteenth-century (steam engines and the first locomotives).  But the results are anachronistic; they have steam elevators and battlefield cannons but still use crossbows as their ranged weapon.  The revolution in the book is the Russian Revolution, not the French.  The books lacked the sense of wonder (and weird believability) of the world of the first series.  In fact, I'd rate all of the independent novels above these.

Anyone else read this?  What did you think?

[Malthus]

Re-reading Jungle of Stone by William Carlsen - about Stephens and Catherwood's expedition to document the ancient Maya sites.

Highly recommended. The story cannot be improved on for sheer weirdness - the two men both had extraordinary talents (Stephens was a natural travel writer, Catherwood an outstanding artist - his drawings are both beautiful and very accurate, not easy to do with Mayan sculpture - I should know, as I've tried it myself!).

Stephens managed to wrangle an appointment as American counsel to the Central American Republic — basically because it was an unpopular diplomatic post (many previous holders had died of disease and his immediate predecessor, having come back from Guatemala, begged not to be posted back there - and committed suicide when he found out he was posted back there anyway). So his "mission" was ostensibly to get a commercial treaty signed ... but he arrived just as the republic was splitting apart in civil war between centralizing liberals and decentralizing conservatives (he managed to hob-nob with the leading generals on both sides, obviously at different times). So while attempting to get a treaty signed with a nation in the process of not existing, he spent his time cross-crossing the land with Catherwood during the middle of a particularly vicious civil war ... without any military escort, or indeed, knowing the local languages (at least at first). All to visit ruins that the locals considered utterly unimportant. In once case, the city of Copan, he actually bought the whole city - for $50 US. He had plans to drag the sculptures he found there back to New York, like the Brits did with the 'Elgin Marbles' of the Parthenon in Athens (fortunately, this was not at all possible).

The whole thing is startlingly odd, and they are lucky indeed to have survived it, let alone come back with such compelling evidence of the past glories of the Maya.

It isn't exactly correct to say that the pair discovered these sites - they had been known about and reported on before (indeed, it was one such report that got them interested). However, no-one of such skill as Catherwood had ever drawn the ruins, and no writer of such skill as Stephens had ever written accounts of them - previous accounts had either been fanciful or dry official reports. So the pair popularized their existence to the world in ways that made an impact.

[Sheilbh]

Friends fear he's not reading any of books he already owns and has ordered a tonne of books online again

[The Brain]

I'm reading The Children of Ash and Elm: A History of the Vikings, by Neil Price. The author takes a look at the Vikings and tries to understand them unfettered by stereotypes or prejudice.

I can't really say that it's bad, it does try to bring a Scandinavian perspective to the Viking world, but it's a bit weird. He sometimes jumps to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence, and he often doesn't explain HOW we know something he claims we know. For instance he claims that the Vikings were totally different from the rest of Europe in their beliefs in little people and similar. Really? Other peoples didn't believe in any supernatural (non-Christian) beings? We know enough about what ordinary people believed in the Dark Ages in different countries to say anything like that?

He talks about how the Vikings had slavery and describes the horrors of slavery in some detail. He does mention that the rest of the known world also practiced slavery, but doesn't say anything about any similarities or differences. And he points out that slavery's bad mkay? Wait, being a slave sucked? Like, no way!!! Whowuddathunkit.

He mentions one of the few instances where remains of people we know to be slaves have been found. The proof? They were found in the part of a burned building that was a stable. Captain Flimsy strikes again.

In the 30 page introduction (!), he finds time for a sermon about the inaccuracy of the Nazi view of the Vikings (for readers who are that kind of Viking fans). I felt like offering the author a deal: how about you don't assume that I'm a Nazi and I won't assume that you are one?

When talking about runes he mentions the many finds of runes on pieces of wood found in Bergen, Norway, with everyday inscriptions like messages or names of owners. And yeah we know that runes were used on materials like wood that normally haven't been preserved, something like the 9th century Rök runestone wasn't produced in a literary vacuum. And it's certainly possible or even likely that the Vikings used runes in the way the Bergen finds demonstrate. But he doesn't mention at all that the Bergen finds AFAIK are all from the centuries after the end of the Viking age. Seems kind of dishonest to me.

He talks about sex, gender, and the many interesting finds in graves that give some info on these things, which is great. But he doesn't at all say how uniquely Viking or not these things are, nothing about how it compares to finds in other cultures. He does this a lot. Focusing on the Vikings themselves is good, but when you don't compare them to others the Vikings are kind of left artificially hanging in a void. A void that certainly didn't exist at the time of the Vikings.

[The Brain]

I'm reading The Children of Ash and Elm: A History of the Vikings, by Neil Price. The author takes a look at the Vikings and tries to understand them unfettered by stereotypes or prejudice.

I can't really say that it's bad, it does try to bring a Scandinavian perspective to the Viking world, but it's a bit weird. He sometimes jumps to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence, and he often doesn't explain HOW we know something he claims we know. For instance he claims that the Vikings were totally different from the rest of Europe in their beliefs in little people and similar. Really? Other peoples didn't believe in any supernatural (non-Christian) beings? We know enough about what ordinary people believed in the Dark Ages in different countries to say anything like that?

He talks about how the Vikings had slavery and describes the horrors of slavery in some detail. He does mention that the rest of the known world also practiced slavery, but doesn't say anything about any similarities or differences. And he points out that slavery's bad mkay? Wait, being a slave sucked? Like, no way!!! Whowuddathunkit.

He mentions one of the few instances where remains of people we know to be slaves have been found. The proof? They were found in the part of a burned building that was a stable. Captain Flimsy strikes again.

In the 30 page introduction (!), he finds time for a sermon about the inaccuracy of the Nazi view of the Vikings (for readers who are that kind of Viking fans). I felt like offering the author a deal: how about you don't assume that I'm a Nazi and I won't assume that you are one?

When talking about runes he mentions the many finds of runes on pieces of wood found in Bergen, Norway, with everyday inscriptions like messages or names of owners. And yeah we know that runes were used on materials like wood that normally haven't been preserved, something like the 9th century Rök runestone wasn't produced in a literary vacuum. And it's certainly possible or even likely that the Vikings used runes in the way the Bergen finds demonstrate. But he doesn't mention at all that the Bergen finds AFAIK are all from the centuries after the end of the Viking age. Seems kind of dishonest to me.

He talks about sex, gender, and the many interesting finds in graves that give some info on these things, which is great. But he doesn't at all say how uniquely Viking or not these things are, nothing about how it compares to finds in other cultures. He does this a lot. Focusing on the Vikings themselves is good, but when you don't compare them to others the Vikings are kind of left artificially hanging in a void. A void that certainly didn't exist at the time of the Vikings.

Finished it. Overall I like it, an enjoyable read. His interpretation of the evidence seems generally sound. Recommended for anyone with an interest in Vikings. For me one of the best things about reading new books on the Vikings is getting an update on exciting new archaeological finds. There were some nice ones that I wasn't aware of (even if they may have been posted in the archaeology thread when they became known), the ship burials in Estonia that closely match the saga description of the fate of pre-Viking Age Swedish king Ingvar foremost among them.

[Habbaku]

  Thanks for the overview. I had heard about the book thanks to a podcast, but put it out of my mind. Added to the list!

[Habbaku]

My latest, based on a recommendation. No idea if it's any good or not, but it's supposed to be a Flashman-esque antihero stuck in a fantasy siege, so I'll take it. 

[Threviel]

I've just heard about that one too, looking forward to the report.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's better to leave your lover, a lot more options.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't know. He claimed there were 50 but only listed six or seven.

[grumbler]

I don't know. He claimed there were 50 but only listed six or seven.

Paul said that she told him that "there must be fifty ways to leave your lover."  He didn't say she listed all of them.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know. He claimed there were 50 but only listed six or seven.

He had to cut it off for radio play. 

[jimmy olsen]

My latest, based on a recommendation. No idea if it's any good or not, but it's supposed to be a Flashman-esque antihero stuck in a fantasy siege, so I'll take it. 

I definitely like that cover