Thanks for your thoughtful essay (and replies to comments). I think I'll give this book a miss. While recognizing that you have read it and I haven't (important!), it sounds like too much is missing from Larson's account for me, particularly African American voices and experience. The resulting objectifying descriptions are also a turn-o…
Thanks for your thoughtful essay (and replies to comments). I think I'll give this book a miss. While recognizing that you have read it and I haven't (important!), it sounds like too much is missing from Larson's account for me, particularly African American voices and experience. The resulting objectifying descriptions are also a turn-off (he sounds like he's talking about livestock, with his "Blacks" and "females"). I imagine, for example, that enslaved people were glad to escape not only the supervision of overseers at Christmas but also their routine violence. Whether either overseers or "masters" took a break from sexual violence over the holidays seems doubtful, especially for multiracial and -generational abuser and rapist Hammond. As to Southern honor, "Field of Blood" gives an outstanding description of how that worked in practice - does Larson acknowledge that reality or take the word at face value?
While one could argue that telling a political story requires only the voices of those empowered to speak in the political arena, it would be fair to readers to say so. Does Larson do that?
On that basis, however, one could argue for a history of the New York Married Women's Property Act that excludes detail about Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (outside their testimony). I wouldn't be interested in that either.
Nevertheless, I hope you enjoy the rest of the book as much as you have the first part.
"While one could argue that telling a political story requires only the voices of those empowered to speak in the political arena, it would be fair to readers to say so. Does Larson do that? "
Thanks for your thoughtful essay (and replies to comments). I think I'll give this book a miss. While recognizing that you have read it and I haven't (important!), it sounds like too much is missing from Larson's account for me, particularly African American voices and experience. The resulting objectifying descriptions are also a turn-off (he sounds like he's talking about livestock, with his "Blacks" and "females"). I imagine, for example, that enslaved people were glad to escape not only the supervision of overseers at Christmas but also their routine violence. Whether either overseers or "masters" took a break from sexual violence over the holidays seems doubtful, especially for multiracial and -generational abuser and rapist Hammond. As to Southern honor, "Field of Blood" gives an outstanding description of how that worked in practice - does Larson acknowledge that reality or take the word at face value?
While one could argue that telling a political story requires only the voices of those empowered to speak in the political arena, it would be fair to readers to say so. Does Larson do that?
On that basis, however, one could argue for a history of the New York Married Women's Property Act that excludes detail about Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (outside their testimony). I wouldn't be interested in that either.
Nevertheless, I hope you enjoy the rest of the book as much as you have the first part.
Well said.
"While one could argue that telling a political story requires only the voices of those empowered to speak in the political arena, it would be fair to readers to say so. Does Larson do that? "
No.