Segue: listening to a historian
Nov. 29th, 2006 06:27 pmLast time I was in the public library in Madison, I was looking for a book on CD to listen to in the car. Flipping through the adult non-fiction on CD, the best I could come up with was something that looked like a popularized history (and is).
Thomas Cahill's Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe. This is the Books on Tape Version, read by John Lee. (http://www.booksontape.com/bookdetail.cfm/7098-DL)
I surprised myself. I liked it. I disagreed with most of his conclusions, and felt that the commentaries on modern politics will soon make it dated. But it was fun to read, and I didn't catch him on too many factual errors (though I think I have earlier evidence of toilet facilities). Yes, he's a popularizer (for a sample, see http://www.randomhouse.com/features/cahill/mysteries_excerpt.html ) And I could have done without the digression about the modern Catholic church at the end. And his conclusions are shallow.
Why did I like it? Because it was a story, and it was read by someone with a superb storyteller's voice. I suspect I'd want to listen to John Lee read St. Augustine, or even Calvin.
I admit that I think I listened to it in a very different spirit than I would have read it; had I read it, I would probably been as incensed as the Library Journal reviewer who slammed it, October 15 2006: "It is difficult to conceive of an audience that would benefit from reading this silly and superficial book."
But as a story, read to me, it had a good deal of the character of a lecture, either in the SCA or in school, created by a person with a good command of language and analogy. It was perfectly clear to me that the author was picking out what he saw as the good bits to share with the reader, and making a loose argument of the conversational type. Perhaps that's how I lecture, though I hope I don't "trample history into a muddled paste of great figures and exalting moments, ignoring nuance or exception." (Perhaps I do. Perhaps I am, in my thoughts on herbwives and fantasy. Ah well.)
I disagree with Cahill on nearly every exact conclusion he draws (such as St. Francis' part in the development of the 'plastic arts' of drama etc.); but on the other hand, I revelled in his argument that the Middle Ages weren't as bad as all that (and his condemnation of A World Lit only by Fire, Manchester's ghastly anti-medieval, anti-Catholic text), and generally his enjoyment of his subject and of the play of words.
Thomas Cahill's Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe. This is the Books on Tape Version, read by John Lee. (http://www.booksontape.com/bookdetail.cfm/7098-DL)
I surprised myself. I liked it. I disagreed with most of his conclusions, and felt that the commentaries on modern politics will soon make it dated. But it was fun to read, and I didn't catch him on too many factual errors (though I think I have earlier evidence of toilet facilities). Yes, he's a popularizer (for a sample, see http://www.randomhouse.com/features/cahill/mysteries_excerpt.html ) And I could have done without the digression about the modern Catholic church at the end. And his conclusions are shallow.
Why did I like it? Because it was a story, and it was read by someone with a superb storyteller's voice. I suspect I'd want to listen to John Lee read St. Augustine, or even Calvin.
I admit that I think I listened to it in a very different spirit than I would have read it; had I read it, I would probably been as incensed as the Library Journal reviewer who slammed it, October 15 2006: "It is difficult to conceive of an audience that would benefit from reading this silly and superficial book."
But as a story, read to me, it had a good deal of the character of a lecture, either in the SCA or in school, created by a person with a good command of language and analogy. It was perfectly clear to me that the author was picking out what he saw as the good bits to share with the reader, and making a loose argument of the conversational type. Perhaps that's how I lecture, though I hope I don't "trample history into a muddled paste of great figures and exalting moments, ignoring nuance or exception." (Perhaps I do. Perhaps I am, in my thoughts on herbwives and fantasy. Ah well.)
I disagree with Cahill on nearly every exact conclusion he draws (such as St. Francis' part in the development of the 'plastic arts' of drama etc.); but on the other hand, I revelled in his argument that the Middle Ages weren't as bad as all that (and his condemnation of A World Lit only by Fire, Manchester's ghastly anti-medieval, anti-Catholic text), and generally his enjoyment of his subject and of the play of words.