/lit/ - Literature

>>17197550
Fuck yeah dude. I would love to get these in print but they are rare and expensive. I've been using my monthly credits on audible for them though, great value considering Age of Faith is like 60 hours, much longer than it looks in pic rel. Highly recommend

>>17197550
i listened to some of these on audiobook

>>17197554
>rare and expensive
No they are not. As long as you do not care about pristine condition they can be had used for less than they would cost new if they were to go back into print. Also, can be had for next to nothing at rummage sales and the like. Only people who lust after this are people who have never read it.

out of print but still in copyright is the gayest thing ever. copyright should have a "use it or lose it" provision

>>17197577
So authors who get to keep their copyright should lose it because the publisher who has the exclusive publishing rights for the next year chooses not to do another printing?

>>17197584
Yes

>>17197593
I guess it would do wonders for the self publishing trade, so it would not be all bad.

>>17197584
He and his wife have been dead for 40 years. Is it really still in copyright?

>>17197611
Yes, Simon and Schuster still own the rights to the series

>>17197611
>>17197615
Worse yet, it doesn't appear Simon & Schuster have a way to contact them to ask for books to be put back into print or make similar requests. The only emails I've been able to find of theirs are business emails or emails for making inquiries about defective products.

Extended copyright for many years is itself already a dubious concept. The original copyright laws back in the 1700s were for 5-7 years. Availability of cheap reprints thereafter contributed significantly to rising literacy and education.

>>17197611
He may never have had the copyright, did it under contract, or may have signed the copyright over to S&S. Either way, it is shit, out of date, full of conjecture and just lacking in important details.

>>17197621
You know if you just use either of those emails they will forward it to the proper people, they will not hunt you down and kill you over using the 'wrong email.' Also, they are not going to put it into print because not even the ebooks sell well and they would have to at the very least spend the time and money to fix the errors to do a print edition. You can get it used for $100-200 if you just watch ebay and settle for less than perfection.

>>17197550
>whiggish anglo pop history

Good riddance.

>>17197651
this
would rather read gibbon desu

There are literally millions of copies of these books floating around. If you’re in the southern USA, just go to half price books and get them. Otherwise, just order them from abebooks

>>17197646
>>17197664
I'm a consoomer, I like buying nice condition books

Just looked and there is a full set in good shape for $275 on ebay, which is probably about what a modern paper back edition with shit bindings would cost. If you watch ebay for awhile you can get the same for at least $100 less. Get some perspective.

>>17197571
>can be had for next to nothing at rummage sales and the like.
nigga find me a set for under $100

>>17197672
Do it yourself. A new edition would be considerably more than that.

>rummage sales
>half price books
>ebay
This is not the same as being in print.

>>17197550
how do i ban another user's IP

>>17197685
and if it were in print you would just bitch about it being to expensive and then when you finally bought a used edition you would bitch about all the errors.

>>17197550
Anyone got a recommendation for something in print that's similar? what makes these so good?

>>17197693
I'm not a poorcel

>>17197695
>what makes these so good?
nothing

Just get books on the topic era which you are interested in.

>>17197699
Then just buy a fucking used pristine edition.

>>17197695
4th edition of the New Penguin History of the World by J.M. Roberts. Same thing but about 1100 pages, and a lot less anglo. Don't get the later editions, they rewrote shit after Roberts died.

>>17197702
Thanks, what year was the 4th edition?

i want to know what's in these that makes kids on 4channel seethe about "ango historians", lmao

>>17197705
2003, according to Amazon. The one I have is (ISBN-13 : 978-0713996111). It's a nice hardcover and for some reason it almost never goes for more than a couple pounds, I got mine for like 5 pounds + shipping and it was like new.

>>17197726
nice

>>17197726
>ISBN-13 : 978-0713996111
Thanks, I'll get it tomorrow

>>17197721
It's not about their ethnicity, it's about their angloisms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

The heart of the issue is that they manage to be both sanctimonious and completely ignorant of the shortcomings of their spotty methodology - not a good mix. They lack any real rigor when it comes to the hermeneutics of history, and they also tend to fall for fickle trends and groupthink far too easily. A lot of history books written in anglo countries get dated really fast for this reason.

>>17197727
>>17197729
I just checked and it may be more expensive for you if you're in the US - maybe it was a UK only release?

>>17197762
You can get the 5th and 6th editions in the US fairly easily. They are not all that different, they don't go all out THE WEST IS THE BEST or anything from anything I can see. Looks like they just updated it to reflect new discoveries and the like. But you do not get a hardback with those.

>>17197779
>they don't go all out THE WEST IS THE BEST
But the West IS the best.

>>17197923
That is a subjective opinion and has no place in objective history.

>>17197929
there's no such thing as objective history dude

>>17197933
I agree

>>17197933
>yesterday I went grocery shopping
I did.

Ok, there is no such thing as objective history.

>>17197929
There would be no such thing as "history" whatsoever if it weren't for the West. Chinese, Indians, and Arabs never developed history as a separate field of skeptical inquiry. For the most part, their "histories" remain merged with mythology/religion. And all other races are too low IQ to even write. The very existence of history is a manifestation of the superiority of the West.

>>17197950
http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEENietzscheAbuseTableAll.pdf

>>17197956
bait

>>17197956
>never developed history as a separate field of skeptical inquiry

but i thought "muh critique" is subversive trick to undermine and destroy the west, now you're telling me it's what makes the west so great?

>>17197956
So you think 'our' histories are not merged with mythology/religion? How quaint. There is objective history, it can not be denied.

>>17197958
Ok. Good for you, you can post links.

>>17197982
If you had even skimmed the essay I posted, you would understand why I posted it and the argument for why there is no such thing as objective history. The opinions of historians will always make their way into history one way or another. The people with the most bias are those who claim they have none. And in trying to create an objective history, which you will never be able to do, you rob the study of history of its vitality. No one cares about useless factoids about previous times. The point of history should be to create a narrative for mankind.

>>17197968
>but i thought "muh critique" is subversive trick to undermine and destroy the west, now you're telling me it's what makes the west so great?
I have no idea what "muh critique" is, explain what you're trying to say?

>>17198012
Or maybe, just maybe, I do not agree with it.

>>17197968
not an argument

>>17198032
Then you should have just said that you disagree with it instead of brushing it off

>>17198028
>>17198033
>skeptical inquiry is what makes the west special and superior!
>"what if all knowledge and truth is just the result of power? what if the mode of production shapes the cultural institutions that have power? what if our previous narratives have been built to justify imperialism?"
>NO NOT LIKE THAT!

>>17198075
If you unironically believe in dialectical materialism or historical materialism you are in absolutely no position to make fun of people for having presuppositions.

>>17198095
but historical materialism is by far the most "objective" is it not?

>>17197702
>history of the world
>in only 1100 pages

Let's be honest you're not going to get much out of that. 500 pages per period (such as Ancient Egypt or Ancient Greece) is maybe, MAYBE acceptable. And that would be only for the history of Europe. Imagine if you put the history of the world with all the other continents into 1100 pages...its almost pointless.

>>17198075
You sound like some college kid who finished his first week of lectures in history 101 and thinks he's enlightened. "Skeptical inquiry" just means empirical, i.e. reconstructing what happened based on previous records and texts and accounts, and then explaining these events in terms of falsifiable theories and patterns. Like what Bembo and Bruni did. Which is completely different from ancient history.

>what if all knowledge and truth is just the result of power?"
damn what if nothing is real dudee...here let me have another blunt dude
> what if the mode of production shapes the cultural institutions that have power?
random monkey typewriter: vaguely communist edition
>what if our previous narratives have been built to justify imperialism?
some obviously have, but most have literally nothing to do with imperialism, or even anything outside europe's borders whatsoever.

>>17198040
Really? Are you that dense? Or do you just assume everyone who does not agree with you to be stupid?

>>17198127
>falsifiable theories and patterns
searched for grand narratives has already been killed of by your beloved skeptical inquiry friend, perhaps enroll in a college and attend the first week of lectures

>>17198146
>falsifiable theories and patterns
>grand narratives
these are completely different.

>>17197702
On the one hand I'm tempted to buy this. On the other, I know I'm not going to read it front to back. Is the book set out in chronological order or by geographical region? Would it reward dipping in and out, reading a chapter here or there which piques one's interest?

>>17198136
>Or do you just assume everyone who does not agree with you to be stupid?
Yes.

>>17197956
>tfw trying to teach 13 year olds about Chinese history and explaining that the Xia probably only exist in Zhou documents to justify their (zhou) overthrow of the shang just as they (shang) overthrew the xia and that there is no confirmed material culture demonstrating the existence of a xia dynasty
Feels weird man. What am I supposed to say? "Yeah it's probably a lie and everyone knows it but its important to sustain the fiction of the narrative of the dynastic cycle"? Just teach em lies i guess.

>>17198153
how do you falsify a theory without it becoming a grand narrative?
>the french revolution happened because the rising bourgeoisie had more economic power than the aristocracy so they overthrew them
>let's run history again but this time without an ascendant bourgeois class and see if the revolution happens still!
>oh that's not possible, so lets look to other countries with totally different cultures and see if this story holds for all people
>oh, nope, the chinese middle class didn't overthrow the ruling socialist party, therefor the french bourgeoisie being responsible for the revolution is FALSIFIED! >in ya face marxists!
wow, very objective, this "knowledge" is definitely "the truth"

>>17198191
So Nietzsche proved decades before I was even born that I did not go grocery shopping yesterday?

>>17198222
you think "i went grocery shopping" is an objective history of yesterday? woo laddy

>>17197550
I have the first three. Pretty good writing but hilariously outdated. Much better books you could read if you want history.

>>17197956
American education, everyone.

>>17197550
You are mentally retarded if you can't find them. I found them at 100$ on ebay and would buy them if the fucking transportation to Europe wouldn't cost 120$. I am sure you can find the books a lot cheaper at some used book store in USA. Also if you think 100$ is to expensive for these many books you should neck yourself.

>>17198237
So I did not go grocery shopping yesterday?

You are showing everything wrong with philosophy fags.

>>17198251
Such as? The only other recommendation someone gave in this thread is a single book that starts at the origin of mankind. I don’t care about primitive man, I’m only interested in the history of civilization. Also, I wouldn’t want it to be a single book. Even a series like the Durants’ is necessarily superficial because of just how massive the history of civilization is. And I’ve tried reading individual books on specific parts of history, but I don’t care about insignificant details that are so common in those kinds of books. I’m interested in an overarching narrative.

>>17198251
in what way is the book on, say, greece outdated? have new classical greek primary texts been discovered since the 1950s that durant did not have access to? here's a secret: with the exception of that play about the grouch that someone found in a jar in egypt, historians have been basing their radically divergent stories on the same exact texts since the fall of constantinople

>>17198124
500-600 pages is the length of a university textbook for introductory courses which is a lot more than almost enough. This comes to 2000-2400 pages of material for an undergraduate. Assuming the book is Eurocentric as almost all of these are, 1100 pages is enough to reach a decent enough level of comprehension from which you can branch out further.

>>17198299
That book starts at the dawn of humanity in Africa and covers the history of the entire world to when it was written. How the fuck could you possible cover all that in just over 1000 pages?

>>17198310
It is more of an detailed outline. Most people don't have the time to get a history PHD, they just want a good rundown on the score.

>>17198325
I’m not interested in going into PHD level of detail, but I’m interested in getting more than just an outline. Also, I don’t care about primitive man or civilization outside of Europe and the Middle East.

>>17198334
Then get a book on the history of Europe and a book on the history of the middle east. This is not that difficult.

>>17198334
If you want a detailed Eurocentric outline you can go for the first year university textbooks that I mentioned. History textbooks aren't that expensive at only 20-30€ a book. Just look up a decent uni's curriculum online.

>>17198288
>The entire first book

>>17198358
meant for >>17198291
And I don't know specifically for Greece I read it years ago. But the first book was particularly bad.

>>17198354
Is there any textbook in particular that you would recommend?

>>17198372
Cambridge Histories

>>17198372
This is the only one that I would actively recommend

>>17198364
yes, it is kind of unfortunate that what is an otherwise excellent series starts with some retard philosophy of history shit that sounds quaint, and rushes through a bunch of asian civilization. the reason for that weird and inauspicious start though is because it wasn't intended to be a series at the time. he was just writing a book about our "oriental heritage" which is to say the way ancient west asia and north africa affected western civ, then he started expanding later. it's clear france is really his wheelhouse as the volumes titled after french personalities become increasingly thicc and comfy with all sorts of tangents into the oeuvres of relatively obscure writers and artists

>>17198372
If you want books go source mining on JSTOR. You should be able to find articles on historiography of x subject there.

>>17197550
I have all of these. Feels damn good man.

>>17197762
Sounds to me like you just hate white anglos.

>>17198501
>white
>anglos

>>17198201
>tfw trying to teach 13 year olds about Chinese history
What’s the context?

>>17198263
This is the opposite of American education, Anglo history has been nothing but self-hatred for 50 years now.

>>17198548
American education = being a clueless retard

Does each book stand on it's own?

QUESTION
Does any material related to the 2 other books in the series they were planning to write exist?
Is it online?

Here’s the whole thing as an ebook. You’re welcome

>>17200784
https://b-ok.cc/book/2494148/271863

>>17198415
>>17198364
I find the first book pretty comfy. Especially on the philosophy of the East.

As a Classics PhD, his books on Greece and Rome are insanely comfy. Yah, like Gibbon, it's "outdated", but the prose and his integral history method are still top-tier for a general survey. I find, again, his understanding of philosophy is excellent, as that was his training, along with his art-criticism, and unlike my other favorite work, Gibbon, he is more than just historical events.

>>17198415
I'm on the 'Age of Louie 14th' and this Anon is correct. It's apparent that it's focused on England and France. However, I won't fault him for that - translations and his own knowledge. But I enjoy the "deep-dives' into the oeuvres of philosophers and writes. Like Racine and or someone like Swift. Give you their biography and the milieu occurring around them.

>>17198588
Yes, but it's best to read them in order. I didn't know much of the history of the reformation or age of reason but the preceding books helped establish the basis for the events.

>>17197550
I see these all the time at used book stores. Is a set really worth that much? Would I be able to make a small profit if I bought copies when I saw them to compile a complete set and then sold them online?

Bump

I love Durant :3

>>17201546
>Would I be able to make a small profit if I bought copies when I saw them to compile a complete set and then sold them online?
No, not at all. People do the opposite with book series for the most part: buy full sets and split them up into individual volumes to increase total profits.

>>17202530
Sad! Assembling collections from stores to help other people acquire them sounds comfy.