November 2008

[lmbrandt]

What will it be and who will chose it?

[loribd92]

Wellllllll.......it seems to be me and you going back and forth. I'll look tonight and see what is on my "to be read" shelf and make a selection from it. Unless someone else wants to step up to the plate and do what is right. Anyone? Anyone?

[lmbrandt]

looks like the choice is yours.

[loribd92]

Ok, in that case I choose "The Age of American Unreason" by Susan Jacoby. I heard her interviewed by Bob Edwards, and she was very funny, and it seemed like an interesting book. In fact, when I decided I wanted to read it I thought, "This sounds like a Laura book."

[lmbrandt]

COOL!

[loribd92]

I'm not done with this one yet -- I'm about halfway through, but am feeling guilt for not posting so I will start anyway:

This is an interesting premise to me, and she's just starting to get into mass culture, which interests me. I watch clips of all these ridiculous reality shows, and I can't believe these people with nothing interesting to say are 'popular'.

My one criticism so far is how anti-religion she is. As if someone wiht faith can't possibly be intellectual as well. Though her criticims are perfectly valid, they seem to step a little overboard to me. However, I really do like how well researched and footnoted everything is -- it takes it out of rant territory and puts it back into scholar-land.

[lmbrandt]

I just bought the book. SHould be able to post **something** by end of next week.

[loribd92]

I'm still not done with this -- I got distracted by some library books -- but I am further into it and watned to revise what I posted earlier. She isn't anti-religion. She is anti-fundamentalist. She does allow that faith can co-exist with religion, and cites examples. I guess my problem is her use of adjectives -- describing the problem is enough without resorting to name calling.

[lmbrandt]

I finished it. I had the same concerns when I first started it too. What I found interesting was that I got confused when reading the book because I am SO used to an author choosing one side or the other -- liberal or conservative/ religious or atheist. She doesn't do that -- she flips back and forth trying to show both sides to the argument. She only chooses education/knowledge vs stupidity. I have to admit, I was very distracted when reading this book so her approach confused me quite a bit at times. She made a lot of very good points but could have stated her case in a more approachable way. In the end, I agreed with most of her points but not all. I don't want to get too much into it since you're still reading it.

I'm reading a the new Warren Buffet biography right now (Snowball). I'm enjoying it thoroughly. Tales of the Beedle Bard will be my next read.

[lmbrandt]

I also wanted to mention that initially I couldn't get over how condescending the author was. However, as I continued on in the book, it wasn't as much of a problem. I'm not sure if it's because I got used to her tone or that she mellowed.

The one thing that I liked about the book is that all of her arguments came down to her belief that we as a society should value knowledge more (and I agree with that). Interestingly, as I mentioned, I kept wanting to peg her as a conservative (or a liberal -- something ) but I couldn't do it. The more I think about that, the more I liked her approach. Respect of knowledge should be universal and she seeks to prove that it is universally undervalued.