"More importantly, these occasional mis-steps and arguable interpretations presented as undisputed fact do not necessarily undermine the credibility or usefulness of the overall narrative and interpretative framework – unless, like many historians, you reject the idea of any such over-arching framework on the grounds that they’re too literary and rhetorical and don’t conform to our experience of history as somewhat erratic and contingent (which is of course only another narrative…)."
Given, the scope of the book, I would be very surprised if there hadn't been some missteps. In fact, one of the things I loved about the book was the way it was written: the way in which he seemed to be "thinking out loud" and seeking to create a shared understanding, the way he avoided technical terms, the way he was able to help the reader look at economic life and action in new ways. ...more than anything, the way he managed to make the reader feel that the issues he was bringing up were everybody's business, not the sacred realm of specialized academicians. And, by his own accounting, this approach was deliberate. In short, a radical book in more ways than one. x Joanna
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
