Yeah it’s a summary work that draws on decades of research. Both of these authors are extremely well-published in their respective fields. I’m like a third of the way through Dawn of Everything and it’s just as academic as “Debt” was, and neither are mass-market pulp. But work like this always draws hit pieces because it’s a way for critics to get their name out there.
What I find interesting about this article is that it critiques heavily about the first 200 pages, says almost nothing about the next 600, and then says the conclusion is unsatisfactory because it didn’t quote the book the author wrote in 1991. It’s transparently personal.
ynazuma@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Different point of view on your “source”, which is a mass market paperback made to sell and be consumed, not for serious scientific inquiry.
libcom.org/…/wrong-about-almost-everything-review…
fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
This author is a crackpot that also went after Chomsky. Chomsky had a hilarious rebuttal.
ZMoney@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yeah it’s a summary work that draws on decades of research. Both of these authors are extremely well-published in their respective fields. I’m like a third of the way through Dawn of Everything and it’s just as academic as “Debt” was, and neither are mass-market pulp. But work like this always draws hit pieces because it’s a way for critics to get their name out there.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
Yeah, that critic made a career on doing hit pieces.
ZMoney@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
What I find interesting about this article is that it critiques heavily about the first 200 pages, says almost nothing about the next 600, and then says the conclusion is unsatisfactory because it didn’t quote the book the author wrote in 1991. It’s transparently personal.
Academics write books. Get over it.