Scan barcode
A review by bricoleur
On Deep History and the Brain by Daniel Lord Smail
2.0
I have the uncomfortable feeling that I believed in the author's premise more before I trudged through his work than after. Perhaps, even worse, I probably even understood his premise better before than after - and I think this is more an indictment of the work itself than in my own limited perspective.
In the preface the author notes:
"People have reminded me how frustrating it can be to read about how and why we should contemplate a deep history without seeing the history itself, and it is hard to disagree with them. The epilogue is a small gesture towards satisfying this need."
Having finished the book I now wish I had taken this statement to heart and skimmed rather than read. For the epilogue is far, far too small a gesture towards redemption of a text that seems more like a chronicling of historians' attitudes to the definition of the word "history" (an only slightly more modern day equivalent to the Medieval Philosopher's arguments over How many angels could sit on the head of a pin?) than the dynamic and bold call to an interdisciplinary study of history that is the author's clarion call.
This is truly disappointing -- as a believer in the power of interdisciplinary work I am always hopeful to see inspired works promoting this aim but, unfortunately, I didn't find this particular work to rise anywhere near the level promised by the cover blurbs.
[Nov. 2007]
In the preface the author notes:
"People have reminded me how frustrating it can be to read about how and why we should contemplate a deep history without seeing the history itself, and it is hard to disagree with them. The epilogue is a small gesture towards satisfying this need."
Having finished the book I now wish I had taken this statement to heart and skimmed rather than read. For the epilogue is far, far too small a gesture towards redemption of a text that seems more like a chronicling of historians' attitudes to the definition of the word "history" (an only slightly more modern day equivalent to the Medieval Philosopher's arguments over How many angels could sit on the head of a pin?) than the dynamic and bold call to an interdisciplinary study of history that is the author's clarion call.
This is truly disappointing -- as a believer in the power of interdisciplinary work I am always hopeful to see inspired works promoting this aim but, unfortunately, I didn't find this particular work to rise anywhere near the level promised by the cover blurbs.
[Nov. 2007]