I've been reading a book called "The Plantagenets" by Dan Jones. It's a narrative history and pretty good: it's not as dry and scholarly as other books I've read. But that got me thinking. Why do I read these books when I could just go to wikipedia and find the kind of generalist information I need? I'm no scholar. I just want to have a basic grasp of things. I don't need to know every little thing Richard the Lionheart did for example, I want to know the major things and the kind of person he was, and I can easily find all of that information on wikipedia--or, if that isn't good enough, another encyclopedia like Britannica or something.
Why should I read histories and biographies?
It seems I should instead read literature and fiction, books that tell a story and which are aesthetically pleasing. Nonfiction histories and biographies are not aesthetic works, they are works of information and instruction.
Do you think we know why you in particular should or shouldn't read certain books?
The answers to your questions should be obvious with some personal contemplation.
Owen Wilson
Because I am interested in discussion. I want to understand why anyone who isn't a specialist should read book-length treatments of topics that would be best understood from summations.
Aaron Harris
Because they are interested in the topic and gain pleasure from receiving information on said topic.
General information does not feed their hunger sufficiently.
Wyatt Stewart
I was going to point out that there is often more information in 200 pages than 20, but I keep reading this post in the voice of Jerry Seinfeld.
> What's the deal with books? I could just watch the movie! I don't have weeks to find out who killed Roger Rabbit, I want to find out right now!
Levi Perez
Because it's more satisfying. That's the point of reading. You get satisfied. And you know more about the details than anything Wikipedia can ever provide.
By your logic, you may aswell buy a copy of Encyclopaedia Britannica and go full Ted Kaczynski. Sure, you'll scratch the surface - but you'll be shallow in deeper conversation. If you want that... do that, I guess.
Robert Cooper
The author may have more to say on a subject than the wiki article. They might have a better way of saying it, too. I'm finding the more specific the subject, the more interesting the book is. If it's general knowledge you want, then sure just look it up.
I draw a distinction between two things: literature, which has aesthetic value, and facts, which do not. History and biography present facts, especially modern history and biography. Livy and Gibbon can do this in the context of literature, but modern scholarship is never literature (at least not yet). Therefore, I gain nothing aesthetically-speaking from modern scholarship: the only thing I gain from it is facts.
Now when I look at the facts I actually benefit from learning, I see that it is general: I just want a simple character sketch, to know the important events, etc. I don't need to know where they were and when and what the relationship was with a certain prelate due to the enactment of a certain law in reaction to the rebellion of a certain baron resulting from the inheritance problems involving a twice-removed cousin. I won't remember it. It's not important. I'm not a graduate student of these topics putting together a research paper, I'm simply the general audience who wants to know the basics.
So, yes: despite my elitist dismissal of things like wikipedia or historical fiction, I actually am the target audience of those things.
Jose Scott
>I want to know the major things and the kind of person he was, and I can easily find all of that information on wikipedia
Joseph Gonzalez
>arbitrary divisions
Parker Murphy
Am I wrong? Prove me wrong. What would I gain from reading a book on Richard the Lionheart as regards information that will actually stick with me that I won't find from wikipedia? This is a serious question.
Jose Diaz
more information
Jack Foster
Once again, prove me wrong. I made an argument that I can't conceive of being false. None of the histories or biographies that I have read are rated well because of aesthetics. They are rated well because of their research, comprehensive coverage, and lack of bias. Not because it is an aesthetic work of literature. Because it isn't literature.
Which, under the conditions I have specified, I don't need. I don't need useless information, such as what I have detailed here: . I want concise, relevant information such as who the person was and the major things they did. And wikipedia presents me with all of that.
Xavier Gray
>and facts, which do not
No, but as was previously mentioned, an author might have a unique approach to explaining these facts. You're not reading a list of bullet points.
Carter Thompson
>an author might have a unique approach to explaining these facts. This is true, and that's a legitimate argument, which certainly comes into play when dealing with increasingly modern subjects. What I would find on wikipedia is partisan; what I would find in book A is partisan etc. This cannot be helped. Any approach to a modern topic is recent enough that any way we approach it will inevitably be partisan.
So I would agree that for modern topics, books have a purpose wikipedia alone cannot serve.
Eli Allen
All you're going to learn from Wikipedia is a very general, partly wrong encyclopedia entry. Have you been to a good library and gone to their history section? Have you ever read a good history book about a subject you love? If you want to learn about the history of New York City, you read Gotham, you don't check out the Wikipedia article. The article also has so little information that you will probably forget it all easily and have to go back and check it again if you want to know the date it was founded, or whatever truncated information is there
You're not going to learn about the Lenape Indians or about Goovenor Morris or the Moon Hoax of 1935, when the New York Sun posted like 12 articles detailing all the centaurs and red vine plants some astronomer had reported as being on the surface of the moon
History is richer and more interesting than a Wikipedia article. And if you want to dive in deeper, you can find shit like the letters of George Washington or letters, articles and contemporary critiques of the English Civil War, or Vanity Fair issues dating back to 1914
All that shit is interesting and not on Wikipedia
Dylan Walker
Why only modern books? Sorry to be so honest but you sound terribly unimaginative. What about events that occurred in the distant past which are still a mystery? Historians are always trying to answer questions, and in some cases they may only be able to present a theory at best. This can make for interesting reading.
The works of history I have coveted the most are revisionist history of WW2, because there I'm actually learning something I wouldn't find on wikipedia. But if I'm reading a biography of Richard the Lionheart, really, what I am getting from it wikipedia won't provide?
I would read history when it involves a controversy that warrants investing into multiple perspectives. I would read multiple biographies on Lenin or Hitler for example, and I would be extremely hesitant to trust anything on wikipedia at all.
But there's virtually no controversy over someone like Alfred the Great, at least not that's relevant to the non-specialist like me.
Since when is history and biography literature? Doesn't literature necessitate having elements that are consciously aesthetic? Modern scholarship is deliberately un-aesthetic, it strives to be as neutral and detached as possible.
I love literature. I would read Plato, Shakespeare, etc all day, because this is aesthetically-significant writing that doesn't deal with pure facts.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Gabriel Cooper
>Modern scholarship is deliberately un-aesthetic, it strives to be as neutral and detached as possible Generally true, but there are exceptions like Simon Schama or Jonathan Spence.
Joseph Flores
>what I am getting from it wikipedia won't provide? More information, understanding, context, possibly a better understanding of how history is written and analysed... If you're not interested in those things, then yeah, it wouldn't be worthwhile. But it does raise the question of why you felt it necessary to ask a bunch of strangers the entirely redundant and tautological question 'why should I read books about subjects that don't interest me enough to read the books about them?'
Dominic Murphy
But would you consider their works "literature?"
Literature is a hazy concept when it comes to definitions, just like "the canon." But I'm unable to see modern scholarship that would be considered "literature." Modern scholarship actually conceives of itself in such a way as to be self-conscious of its eventual displacement by further scholarship. It does not intend to stand the tests of time, which I believe literature must do.
Authors can write in a pleasing way, but that's not why we're reading it.
But that's in contrast to Livy and Gibbon, who actually wrote works of literature. They intended their works to stand the test of time, not to be replaced by future scholarship. Livy intended his history of Rome to be THE HISTORY, just as Gibbon intended his to be THE HISTORY.
Owen Miller
Because the discussion helps to clarify my mindset in a way that simply talking to myself might not do. I appreciate the feedback, and it is indeed helpful.
Joseph Martin
prove your solipsist bullshit right faggot
Aaron Perry
Why is it useless? Because you say so?
If you want undergrad information, go ahead and read wikipedia. No one needs to hear about it.
Kayden Bennett
>it strives to be as neutral and detached as possible.
You have to be joking if you think no literature attempts the same.
Jack Foster
Yes they do.
It's become clear to me that I'm far more of an intellectual than most of you. I still fail to see why one such as myself, should waste their time on long works when I get all I need from Wikipedia.
Nicholas Hernandez
You don't have to do anything. But by not reading history you will condemn yourself to being wrong about just about everything. This is acceptable as long as you shut up.
Camden Wilson
>It's become clear to me that I'm far more of an intellectual than most of you. I still fail to see why one such as myself, should waste their time on long works when I get all I need from Wikipedia.
hubris mixed with ignorance. a scholarly monograph is of a far higher value than a crowd sourced wikipedia article.
>The works of history I have coveted the most are revisionist history of WW2, because there I'm actually learning something I wouldn't find on wikipedia. But if I'm reading a biography of Richard the Lionheart, really, what I am getting from it wikipedia won't provide? So you both agree that books hold more information, but then suggest that they don't? Just admit that you're wrong in that books dedicated to the subject are better and more in-depth
Blake Myers
Maybe because it will make you less of a pretentious faggot but if that's not your style then never mind.
Julian Nelson
And? Do you think that article has more information or the same amount as Gotham? Do you think Wikipedia has an entry for every single story on that book?
Also, now find me back issues of Vanity Fair and Home and Garden from 1924
The most you'll find on Wikipedia is a very truncated history of Vanity Fair. I think their page for the original Vanity Fair is like three paragraphs
Jaxson Allen
He just wants to impress himself because that is the only person he cares about.
"Prove him wrong."
Henry Ortiz
I just read the war of the roses by the same author. While you can wiki the subject, you miss out on the historical context of many of the events. During a book you become immersed and can truly understand the subject rather than merely trying to memorise facts/dates/reasons on wiki.
Jackson James
I take it you wanna have a broad knowledge, and skim trough paragraphs of generalised information to broaden it more. (As if ignoring things deliberately wasn't the opposite of it)
What im saying is: trying to save space on your brain is stupid. In fact, you should try to fill it with as many little pieces of information as you can. The more you're able to retain and recall, the better
