I have listened to three hours so far (on tape) of Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond and am so far not impressed. I know that the book is often referenced around the boards so I decided to give it a try. I find Diamond’s writing/thinking to be so incredibly disorganized and digressive - like a stream of conciousness thesis. I find his digressions (like the battle between Pizarro and Atalhuapa and the history and pros and cons of various types of carbon dating) to be confusing, boring, and competely at odds with the academic tone of his writing. He never draws any conclusions about one premise before moving on to another. It’s been 5 out of 19 chapters so far and he is still explaining why it was easy for a culture with horses, iron weapons, and writing to beat a culture that doesn’t - like that’s so tough to understand.
Ok, so part of this post is just venting frustration but I’m also interested to know if it get’s any better or whether I should just have someone who did read it summarize it for me.
Yes, that is very tough to understand. Many are still trying to understand it.
He is explaining his theory of how and why some civilizations beat others in writing, farming and animal husbandry. It’s sorta the point of the book. If finding out the how and the why is not what you wanted, then this book isn’t for you.
I found the first part of the book fascinating, but the latter part (once civilation got organized) rather dry.
You think it’s tough to understand how a culture with horses, iron weapons, and written history can beat a culture with stone tools?
If you read my OP, you’ll see that I’m three and a half hours into it and am still hearing about why it was that a more advanced civ could conquer a less advanced civ - Not how and why they became more or less advanced which is the thesis of the book.
If you are presenting a theory, you cannot presume your conclusions.
In Part One he establishes that there are societies with more “cargo” and these societies, by and large, defeat, overrun or somehow dominate the societies with less “cargo”. He gives examples of this. This is not a digression.
In Part Two he explains how and why some areas developed food cultivation before others. He speaks of how humans figured out what to plant-- that planting stuff is even possible. He traces the history of crops back to prehistoric times. This is not a digression.
Chapter 5 comes early in Part Two. There is a preface and a prologue, and I don’t know how the tape handles that. I think that if I had someone telling me all this info, I’d find him to be a complete bore.
The book isn’t meeting your expectations, I see. I’m curious as to what your expectations were.
Biggirl
If he stuck to your summary of part one he wouldn’t be digressing. I’m speaking of his long description of the meeting of Pizarro and Atahualpa and worse, his digression on the various pros and cons of different types of carbon dating (which should have been a footnote.) He really needed an editor.
** KidCharlemagne ** if you are having trouble understanding the cohesiveness of what Diamond is trying to say try picking up these. They will shed light on what you find as a digression.
**The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington
The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization by Thomas L. Friedman
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins **
All of these will shed light on your audio-literary plight.
AND* go over to my other thread about: “what books have changed your outlook on life” etc…etc… Most of those people posting over there are reading some very influencial works. Have you ever read any Ayn Rand? Just out of curiosity?
I’ve got to say, read on at least a bit more. I didn’t finish the book (maybe half way through), but I absolutely loved the bit explaining domestication of plants and animals, how it happens, and why it happened in certain places. Really interesting stuff (I’m not sure what chapters those were).
I admit, I was disappointed in GGS myself. Diamond presents very good insights into his topic but he does it (at times) in ways that would have got him kicked out of my University of Iowa doctoral program (note: I didn’t finish…money lured me away).
He’s very deterministic in some of his conclusions. As if certain cultures would inevitably come to be dominant. I never properly got the sense that he believed there was a certain element of ambition involved. Yes, certain cultures have advantages but A) they need to realize the importance of the advantage and B) they need to have the ambition and ruthlessness to exploit those advantages.
It struck me sort of like someone assuming that just because someone in the united states is white and wealthy they would automatically go on to be a powerdul and influential person in society. It’s just not that automatic.
It’s been a long time since I’ve read the book (more than a year…maybe two) so maybe I’m mis-remembering. But that sense of inevitability would have gotten me sent back to the drawing board.
Yes, it’s all like that. I had exactly the same problem. Diamond seems to have very little respect for his readers’ intelligence, so he keeps explaining things that don’t need explanation (the last straw for me was when he paused to point out that cyanide is poisonous) and then, worse, failing to show exactly how his weird little tangent relates back to the main point. And he does take an awfully absolute and deterministic view of his theory.
However, the book’s ideas are important and interesting enough that you should probably stick it out despite the crappy writing.
Yes he is being very deterministic. He is saying that ambition had very little to do with which societies came to dominate. He is arguing against the notion that these societies had some sort of moral, emotional or intellectual advantage.
That’s the nut of his whole theory.
Some of you are missing the point. My gripe has nothing to do with his thesis or with the examples he uses to support it. My gripe is solely with these digressions that serve neither. Don’t assume that any gripe with an erudite work is a result of not being able to understand it. Any decent editor should have red inked this thing to death with a good old, “What does this have to do with your thesis?” remark.
Phlosphr if you look at my post in the thread you mentioned, you’ll see I too included Dawkin’s book among those that have influenced me.
I’m with biggirl on this book – I didn’t find it particularly digressive or repetitive. When you’re dealing with all of human history, naturally there are going to be some points. I thought the stuff on Atahualpa was a really vivid illustration of his thesis. The stuff on the development of agriculture, etc., was fascinating to me – the randomness of the raw material distribution, etc. I skimmed the last section – by then I thought the point had been made. I do agree that the stuff on carbon-14 dating was a bit of an intrusion – who cares? – but overall I loved the book; in fact, I listed it in the “recent really, really good reads” section in my salon personal.
Diamond is popularizing a series of theses from various disciplines in which he is clearly not an expert. Just synthesizing this much material is difficult; trying to do so while explaining it for a popular audience whose level of comprehension you cannot know is an Olympic level feat.
Overall, I was very impressed by how successful he was at this, although I certainly disagreed with him on many points. I don’t remember finding it particularly dry or digressive, but this is stuff that I love so I’m a good audience for him.
Of course, it may simply be that the book hangs together better if you read it than if you listen to it, which has to be a fragmenting experience in and of itself.
Just a question, are the tapes unabridged? I have found, in the past, that books on tape can be difficult to follow. Perhaps you would enjoy the book more if you were reading it, if you can.
The audiobook is unabridged. It’s not so much that I find it difficult to follow as I find the digressions annoying and unprofessional for someone assuming an otherwise academic tone.
Gotcha, I will to confess to not having finished the book myself, probably out of the same frustrations that you were having. I may try to revisit it later, but I think I got the general ideas pretty early on.
In rereading my last post, I see that it could look like I was trying to say that you do not know how to read, which was not my intent. I meant that you might be listening to the book while driving to work or something like that. No offense intended.
Personally I can not follow books on tape because I get too distracted by other things…