Norman F. Cantor, may you kindly fuck off and die, or at least stop writing, please?

[zweisamkeit]

So I'm in this mall, see? And a Borders is drawing me in with its special magnetic books. I don't have much time to browse, but I see a title that looks interesting. Unfortunately, I get back home and check Amazon, and see that Norman F Cantor's "In the Wake of the Plague: the Black Death and the World It Made" has a dreadful 2 star rating after 143 people reviewed it.

"Self!" I said, "You should at least skim it first, right? I mean, you wouldn't return a book because other people have said it sucks and not even look at it." So I did.

Jaysus Christ.

This shit is totally un-fucking acceptable.

On page 3, he states an urban legend as fact with:

In the England of 1500 children were singing a rhyme and playing a game called "Ring Around the Rosies." When I grew up in Canada in the 1940s children holding hands in a circle still moved around and sang:

Ring around the rosies
A pocketful of posies
Ashes, ashes
We all fall down

The origin of the rhyme is the flulike symptoms, skin discoloring, and mortality caused by bubonic plague. [snip]

Taking just 30 seconds to go to Snopes informs you of things like:

How anyone could credibly assert that a rhyme which didn't appear in print until 1881 actually "began about 1347" is a mystery. If the rhyme were really this old, then "Ring Around the Rosie" antedates even Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and therefore we would have examples of this rhyme in Middle English as well as Modern English forms.

That irritated me enough. But then I went on another couple of pages and came across some absolutely atrocious writing.

But the great medical devastation hit no country harder than England in 1348-49 and because of the rich documentation surviving on fourteenth-century England it is in that country that we can best examine its personal and social impact in detail.

Holy fucking run-on awkward sentence, Batman!

Furthermore, there were at least three waves of the Black Death falling upon England over the century following 1350, nowhere near as severe as the cataclysm of the late 1340s, whose severity was unique in human history. But the succeeding outbreaks generated a high mortality nonetheless.

So you basically wrote two sentences that had no reason to be there and contradicted each other. If your focus is on the Black Death of 1348-50, why do you go on about these later ones and then basically say, "but they weren't AS bad, but they were still pretty bad, so, uh... yeah."

I just can't believe that the back of the book would call him "the premier historian of the Middle Ages". The inside bio says

Norman F. Cantor is Emeritus Professor of History, Sociology and Comparitive Literature at New York Universeity. His academic honors include appointments as a Rhodes Scholar, Porter Ogden Jacobus Fellow at Princeton University, and Fullbright Professor at Tel Aviv University. His previous books include Inventing the Middle Ages, nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award, and The Civilization of the Middle Ages, the most widely read narrative of the Middle Ages in the English language.

While seeing so many Capitalized Titles of Impressiveness seems rather imposing, my thoughts are:

1 - If what was said about those two books are true, he probably had the world's best editor ever for them.
2 - For some reason that editor wasn't with him for this book and they hired a mentally disabled goat instead.

I mean, goddammit! The title and subject matter hold such goddamned PROMISE and I am left with this book of dreck that I have to return. And to think that I wavered between this and a nice big book of Icelandic sagas*. DAMMIT, you asshole. You teased me with an interesting premise AND YOU TOTALLY COCKED IT UP. I HATE YOU.

*_{Yes, I'm aware that I look like the world's biggest nerd here.}

[DiosaBellissima]

That's Differently Abled Goat, Missy.

[Maeglin]

You are not the world's biggest nerd, the Icelandic Sagas is an excellent book, and yes, Norman Cantor needs to retire posthaste.

He is not the premier historian of the Middle Ages by any stretch of the imagination. I am sorry you gave his work more time than it deserves.

[Orual]

I have that book. It was clearly written by a crabby semi-senile old man.

Fortunately, it was a gift, so I paid nothing for it.

[bonzer]

Norman Cantor is dead. And has been for for just over a year now.

He's presumably also stopped writing.

[mks57]

Originally Posted by bonzer

Norman Cantor is dead. And has been for for just over a year now.

He's presumably also stopped writing.

That never stopped L. Ron Hubbard.

[zweisamkeit]

Originally Posted by bonzer

Norman Cantor is dead. And has been for for just over a year now.

He's presumably also stopped writing.

Wow, my Pit thread worked!

Although seriously, that makes me feel a bit bad. Oops.

[mischievous]

I was given that book as a gift. I eventually threw it out in rage. Now, my grasp of history is extremely shaky at best, but dear Christ on a hell-hound! On the one hand he feels compelled to explain at length that underage royal princesses of the time didn't necessarily get to marry for love (ya think?), on the other hand he trys to pass over complex historical arguements with brief statements of "fact" so totally biased that my completely historically uneducated ass cried bullshit.

I particularly liked the bold statement (stated as undeniable fact) that kings had no power. They were just obeyed because they were so stylish and impressive (I'm not making this up). Because, you know, if all of the noblemen got together and stopped giving the king money and soldiers, he wouldn't have an army. Duh. Never mind the fact that any nobleman who tried it would get smooshed into dirt. Also nevermind that if you take away the army and the money from pretty much any leader, he becomes powerless. Army + money = power. Kings had both.

I was also fond of the repeated accusation against king someone-or-other (did I mention my grasp of history?) of being a sadist. Not because he was particularly mean or anything (as far as I know, and as far as was presented in the book), but because he was ruling people without being elected by them. Never mind that that was (a) the norm at the time, and (b) his job. Sadist!

Grrrr.

mischievous

[Snooooopy]

Originally Posted by bonzer

Norman Cantor is dead. And has been for for just over a year now.

He's presumably also stopped writing.

Unfortunately, before he died, he passed his work onto his heir: Billy, age 8.

[bonzer]

Originally Posted by zweisamkeit

Although seriously, that makes me feel a bit bad. Oops.

If it's any consolation, I was merely amused that the Pitting was, inadvertently, quite so unfortunately phrased.

[Beadalin]

I guess my reading comprehension must be busted. What is the contradiction between these two sentences?

(Not that I disagree with your post at all, it's just bugging me that I can't figure out how one contradicts the other.)

But the great medical devastation hit no country harder than England in 1348-49 and because of the rich documentation surviving on fourteenth-century England it is in that country that we can best examine its personal and social impact in detail.

Furthermore, there were at least three waves of the Black Death falling upon England over the century following 1350, nowhere near as severe as the cataclysm of the late 1340s, whose severity was unique in human history. But the succeeding outbreaks generated a high mortality nonetheless.

[Jurph]

This is why we have that prohibition against wishing death on people! It turns out that the hamsters' wheels are actually prayer wheels, and the server farm cabinet is made out of wood from that rocking horse in that short story, "The Rocking-Horse Winner", and the cables are arranged into loopy supplicating runes each morning by the priests of Og.

When you log onto the SDMB, you have to be careful what you... hey, hang on. Um, did someone order a goat? A really really dumb goat?

[zweisamkeit]

Originally Posted by Beadalin

I guess my reading comprehension must be busted. What is the contradiction between these two sentences?

(Not that I disagree with your post at all, it's just bugging me that I can't figure out how one contradicts the other.)

That's known as something where there's a better word for what my brain meant, but don't count on me to figure out what it is. (although in my defense, I'm not the one writing a book and touting myself as a premier historian, heh heh). I could've taken that part out and just said that putting those there served no purpose and weakened his argument in a way. Does that make more sense?

[Maeglin]

Wow, I had no idea he was dead. Some former medieval historian I am.

A similar thing happened to me years ago. I was in office hours with the person who I believe is the premier medieval historian of this generation. We were talking about another historian, John Murdoch. I found out later that he was her mentor.

I made some off-hand reference to him being dead.

"He's dead? It must have been awfully sudden. I gave a paper with him at a conference last month."

Oops.

[Wendell Wagner]

I have no idea whether the book you're talking about is any good, but I know that at least one book by Cantor is halfway decent. I've read _Inventing the Middle Ages_ and it's a pretty good book about the most important medievalists (i.e., historians of and literary experts on the Middle Ages) during the twentieth century. It had some mistakes in it, but it was an excellent introduction to the academic study of the Middle Ages in the past century.

It's hard for me to tell, but my impression is that Cantor wasn't remotely an important scholar, in the sense of writing anything that advanced the field with major research. He understood the field well enough to write a general survey and he personally knew many important medievalists. He was sometimes weak on the details, apparently because he wasn't willing to spend the time on research that he should have.

[Uvula Donor]

Originally Posted by zweisamkeit

Norman F Cantor's "In the Wake of the Plague: the Black Death and the World It Made"[/url] has a dreadful 2 star rating after 143 people reviewed it.

Wow. That's at least two stars more than that piece of shit deserves.

(I bought it about 2 years ago, lured by the interesting title.)

[Larry Borgia]

I've got Inventing the Middle Ages and A history of the Jews. I've heard they're both pretty good but I haven't gotten around to reading them yet. Anybody have an opinion on them?

[Neurotik]

I also bought that book, lured by the title and potentially interesting subject matter. It is a terrible, terrible book.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

It's hard for me to tell, but my impression is that Cantor wasn't remotely an important scholar, in the sense of writing anything that advanced the field with major research. He understood the field well enough to write a general survey and he personally knew many important medievalists. He was sometimes weak on the details, apparently because he wasn't willing to spend the time on research that he should have.

Nailed it in one.

To be fair, Cantor also clung to conservative historiography, contrary to the rest of the field. According to some folks who knew him well, he thought he was ostracized for his conservative methdological and political beliefs. In reality, people just didn't think he did very interesting work nor was a very pleasant person to be around.

YMMV.

[elucidator]

"This is not a book to be set aside lightly, but hurled with great force."
- Dorothy Parker

[scule]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

To be fair, Cantor also clung to conservative historiography, contrary to the rest of the field. According to some folks who knew him well, he thought he was ostracized for his conservative methdological and political beliefs. In reality, people just didn't think he did very interesting work nor was a very pleasant person to be around

I think I bought a book on Antiquity by him, but now I'm worried that it won't be any good. I love history, particularly ancient history and medieval history, but what would you recommend for someone who gets their books from a place like Borders or Barnes & Noble (up here it's Chapters, which is a great store in my opinion)? I'm no expert on who the premier names in the field are, so I can often only go on, literarly, judging the book by its cover. Any tips?

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by scule

I think I bought a book on Antiquity by him, but now I'm worried that it won't be any good. I love history, particularly ancient history and medieval history, but what would you recommend for someone who gets their books from a place like Borders or Barnes & Noble (up here it's Chapters, which is a great store in my opinion)? I'm no expert on who the premier names in the field are, so I can often only go on, literarly, judging the book by its cover. Any tips?

Don't sweat it. It might be pretty enjoyable. If you want a really well-written and accessible book on late antiquity, check out The World of Late Antiquity by Peter Brown.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

Don't sweat it. It might be pretty enjoyable. If you want a really well-written and accessible book on late antiquity, check out The World of Late Antiquity by Peter Brown.

What's it about?

[Ponder Stibbons]

Originally Posted by elucidator

What's it about?

It's about 20 bucks.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by elucidator

What's it about?

About 500 pages.

[elucidator]

My fee for teeing up straight lines is $1.25 per. Please remit to the Mother's March Against Cognitive Dissonance. Thank you.

[Maeglin]

If you want the 148 page version, try The Making of Late Antiquity. The chapters are individual lectures Brown gave. Also a wonderful place to begin studying an awesome period.

[Ca3799]

Originally Posted by DiosaBellissima

That's Differently Abled Goat, Missy.

Get with the now--that's a multipli-handi-capable goat!

[lno]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

A similar thing happened to me years ago. I was in office hours with the person who I believe is the premier medieval historian of this generation. We were talking about another historian, John Murdoch. I found out later that he was her mentor.

Bynum?

[LilyoftheValley]

Originally Posted by zweisamkeit

And to think that I wavered between this and a nice big book of Icelandic sagas.

Will it make you feel any better to know that I just followed that link and I now have one more Christmas gift crossed off my list? Thanks!

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by lno

Bynum?

But of course. The look she gave me when I told her quite confidently that her mentor was dead was priceless.

[scule]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

Don't sweat it. It might be pretty enjoyable. If you want a really well-written and accessible book on late antiquity, check out The World of Late Antiquity by Peter Brown.

Thanks, I appreciate the recommendation, but what I'm more wondering is how does someone get to know who to read? For example, I thought the Cantor book looked good, as did others by him, because of the recommendations on the cover (yes, I know, of course they'll be glowing, I'm more referring to the credentials listed). But I could have no way of knowing that this Peter Brown would be the better choice.

I've read a book by Karen Armstrong on the Crusades and modern times, which was excellent, but is there something better? I've read a book by Bernard Lewis on the history of the Middle East, which was also excellent, but now I'm worried he may not have been good enough. There are others, like Europe by Norman Davies, which are in the queue. Where can I find out if these are the best people to read? Any ideas?

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by scule

Thanks, I appreciate the recommendation, but what I'm more wondering is how does someone get to know who to read? For example, I thought the Cantor book looked good, as did others by him, because of the recommendations on the cover (yes, I know, of course they'll be glowing, I'm more referring to the credentials listed). But I could have no way of knowing that this Peter Brown would be the better choice.

I've read a book by Karen Armstrong on the Crusades and modern times, which was excellent, but is there something better? I've read a book by Bernard Lewis on the history of the Middle East, which was also excellent, but now I'm worried he may not have been good enough. There are others, like Europe by Norman Davies, which are in the queue. Where can I find out if these are the best people to read? Any ideas?

Tough question. FWIW, you are spot on with Karen Armstrong and Bernard Lewis. I assume you are talking about Armstrong's Holy War, which is an outstanding book. I am a very big admirer of her work, and had the opportunity to cross paths with her about two years ago.

Same for Lewis. Though he takes some flack for his unflinching critique of modern Islamic culture, he is exceptionally erudite and really knows what he is talking about.

In general, it is not easy to tell the good from the bad without some background in the subject. I've read a bunch of crappy books without knowing better in fields that I knew nothing about. I think I've read half a dozen of Cantor's books, and that is time I will never geet back.

But the digger you deep and the more you try to track references and footnotes, the greater the likelihood that you will stumble onto something good. It also helps to know people who know something about these fields and who are willing to give you suggestions. If you are feeling really motivated, google. You can find grad school reading lists, curricula, and syllabi all over the internet. If you want to learn more about, say, medieval history, see what the kids who take Intro to Medieval History are reading.

[Sampiro]

In the England of 1500 children were singing a rhyme and playing a game called "Ring Around the Rosies." When I grew up in Canada in the 1940s children holding hands in a circle still moved around and sang:

I don't know why, but being self referential in a history book is just a major pet peeve of mine. It's fine when it's a Vietnam correspondent or William Shirer or some such who in a book of history mentions in the first person something primary that they witnessed, but the above example (even if it were accurate) is of the kind that drives me nuts. Stephen Ambrose was one of the worst offenders (what the hell does your family's camping trip have to do with Custer? If you learned an interesting anecdote about Custer on the camping trip then cite and include it, but I'm reading this book for info on him) or Richard Marius who goes into a two page discussion of a hippie commune he witnessed while in his biography of Martin Luther- NO! NYET! NEIN!

I have no problem with memoirs, I like them in fact, but if it's in history then your job is to talk about the subject and be as unobtrusive as a good waiter. You could just as easily say "Ring Around the Rosies is still a nursery rhyme" rather than "when I was a boy riding a pony to school yadda yadda".

Sorry, rant out.

[ivylass]

See, this is why I check out books at the library first. Once an author has impressed me, I will buy their books, but the library copy is the first one I read.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by scule

I've read a book by Karen Armstrong on the Crusades and modern times, which was excellent, but is there something better? I've read a book by Bernard Lewis on the history of the Middle East, which was also excellent, but now I'm worried he may not have been good enough. There are others, like Europe by Norman Davies, which are in the queue. Where can I find out if these are the best people to read? Any ideas?

You might want to also check out Albert Hourani's "History of the Arab Peoples". It's not perfect...it's biased, but good.