CG wrote: > Are they worth the read? Serious question.
Out of respect for Hobsbawn's memory, which like everybody else's, deserves sober critical consideration, I found his Ages sorely lacking in terms of theoretical backbone and immediate, substantive connection with the struggles and events recounted. You know what I mean. After reading Trotsky's history of the Russian revolution, you know exactly what I mean. IMHO, his best work (among those I read, I should say) was the Age of Revolution. He seemed to have invested more of himself in that work. But overall I found it frustrating how idiosyncratic (unsystematic) his selection of historical events was. The Age of Extremes was extremely disappointing to me. (And I paid top dollar for the new, hard cover version.) His way of summarizing key historical phenomena was a bit too nonchalant, not to say superficial, for my taste. I found him not very self reflective, let alone self critical. And history is ad hominem or is not serious. There was something about his descriptions and use of terms that suggested the opposite of seriousness. Levity. You don't find in Hobsbawn's works the depth of reflection of, say, E. H. Carr. I don't mean this out of spite, since he (or, more likely, his teaching assistant) gave me good grades. Two cents, of course. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
