Books sah! Faahsands of 'em. Well, five, actually...

[matgb]

Meme time: -Choose a book genre
-Choose five books from that genre
-Tell me why I should read them.
Nice'n simple. I pick history:

1. An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (or 2000 years of Upper Class Idiots in charge)--John O'Farrell

Comments

[matgb]

There are exceptions to my generalisation, but they are previously unknown to me. Your fault.

But yeah, Wells annoys me at times, and even much morepopulist writing styles like Doyle does grate sometimes.

Not denying that they're good, just not necessarily for my general reading pleasure. Especially true of most philosophers--I cannot read Mar, but I can read on Marx with interest...

[bopeepsheep]

William I (of Normandy) landed with less men, on less boats,
FEWER!

You're right about the rest though. :D

1789-1914 was my A level History period (which annoyed me slightly as I wanted to at least go to 1921, but never mind).

[matgb]

Bah, pointless outdated grammar 'rules' that do little to aid clarity but do cause confusion in writers that should be better served by ignoring them.

(my next post may or may not be in Cameron's attack on the Spelling Society, but that's linked to a poll I need to finish research on).

I did 17thC for my A level (hence my initial interest in 1688), but did the latter for my Access course, both are of interest.

[bopeepsheep]

Not pointless, just slightly more effort than the average illiterate apparently wants to put in. :-p (Really, there are useful distinctions between words that make it worth preserving most of these rules, including the purely grammatical ones. It's probably a losing war against apathy and ignorance - there was a frustrating flamewar recently on a friend's LJ about the use of the word 'ignorant', usefully illustrating most of the commenters' ignorance in the process; none of them is stupid, by a long way, but apparently they can't tell the difference between ignorance and stupidity thanks to their usual imprecise use of either word. They're not synonyms!

But because lazy use 'skunks' certain words, we then have to use 5 words to explain a concept where 1 word previously did the job neatly. It's worth railing against bad usage in general to avoid such rubbish.

[iainjcoleman]

On the specific point of "less" versus "fewer", I think you're wrong. See this analysis on Language Log, the main point of which is that "less" was fine for Alfred the Great, and for nine centuries thereafter, until Robert Baker opined that "fewer" seemed to him more aesthetically pleasing, at which point, for no apparent reason, it became A Rule You Must Follow rather than a matter of style and preference.

O'Farrell

[ext_105454]

I've read the first one, O'Farrell's history of Britain, and I agree with your recommendation. The humour keeps it alive, even if it is the same sort of joke over and over.

However towards the end, the Labour Party turns up, and he gets a bit soppy about it. So I've kinda put it down. Must finish it though...

Re: O'Farrell

[matgb]

Do think he spent a bit too much time on the forming of Labour compared to the other two parties, but to an extent that's excusable-ultimately a book aimed at a modern audience needs to pay attention to modern concerns, and the Labour party is undoubtedly significant.

To an extent the soppiness is justified, it's Labour's fault that we got down to the 'big two' parties post '45, but if you have to choose between them.

We're lucky, we've got better options now.

[pmoodie]

I should definitely read more history. Thanks for the reccies! :)

[ginasketch]

I really must read number 5.