(no subject)
James W. Morley, ed. Dilemmas of Growth in Prewar Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971).
The Hakone conference is one of those touchstones - people these days argue about what violence against history and other schools of thought was committed there, and it is true that it codified certain aspects and influenced thought in a rather startling way. This isn't the conference volume, but it does contain (a) discussion of Hakone and (b) some of the 'binational' discussion as seen at Hakone.
And, oh yes - how could we forget - Reischauer's famous "What Went Wrong?" essay, which has plagued later generations of Japan specialists and hapless Sinologists who are forced to study modern Japanese history. Thanks, Edwin O., thanks.
Anyways, pretty typical Princeton book from the '70s - heavy on the detail, excellent reference, general quality of the essays is quite high. Boring as anything I've ever read on the most part. Of course, we can't judge books on how thrilling they are, but so much of the information is extremely dry, so it's hard to get things to 'stick.' I keep these things on my shelf because they are great references, but in terms of making a lasting impression? Give me a monograph any day (preferably one from the past 20 years).
Highlights were probably the Najita and Duus articles - neither of which quite seems to 'fit' with the rest of the book.
"What went wrong?" - perhaps a 'natural' question to ask, but precisely why so much of modern Japanese historiography tells us more about the anxiety of the writers than of history itself.
The Hakone conference is one of those touchstones - people these days argue about what violence against history and other schools of thought was committed there, and it is true that it codified certain aspects and influenced thought in a rather startling way. This isn't the conference volume, but it does contain (a) discussion of Hakone and (b) some of the 'binational' discussion as seen at Hakone.
And, oh yes - how could we forget - Reischauer's famous "What Went Wrong?" essay, which has plagued later generations of Japan specialists and hapless Sinologists who are forced to study modern Japanese history. Thanks, Edwin O., thanks.
Anyways, pretty typical Princeton book from the '70s - heavy on the detail, excellent reference, general quality of the essays is quite high. Boring as anything I've ever read on the most part. Of course, we can't judge books on how thrilling they are, but so much of the information is extremely dry, so it's hard to get things to 'stick.' I keep these things on my shelf because they are great references, but in terms of making a lasting impression? Give me a monograph any day (preferably one from the past 20 years).
Highlights were probably the Najita and Duus articles - neither of which quite seems to 'fit' with the rest of the book.
"What went wrong?" - perhaps a 'natural' question to ask, but precisely why so much of modern Japanese historiography tells us more about the anxiety of the writers than of history itself.