Better-received by experts, that is!

Or is the book actually well-regarded on the whole and still worth reading despite the criticisms? I’m not in a position to know, unfortunately, as I’m an uneducated schmuck.

Thank you!

  • dgdftEnglish
    193·
    2 days ago

    Don’t let Wikipedia fool you: Diamond is a bonafide academic and Guns*, Germs, Steel is a pretty good read. There’s been plenty of criticism of the work and the author, and much of it holds water, but that’s largely a product of its popularity and influence. You won’t be wasting time if you pick it up, though do take the popular critiques under consideration.

    That being said, Charles Mann’s 1491 and 1493 are the best books that cover similar ground while staying rigorous and casually readable. I also wholeheartedly recommend Pekka Hamalainen’s work for a North American lens on the Transatlantic exchange.

    • discocactusEnglish
      15·
      3 days ago

      I mean he is an academic but not a historian. Came here to recommend those Mann books though, they’re excellent and he’s a better writer/researcher.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zoneEnglish
      10·
      3 days ago

      I think any work that tries to compress all of the worlds human history into short digestable points is going to have to simolifynthings in a way that doesn’t satisfy academics in various fields. It’s an enjoyable read and has some food points to make.

      Would I consider it an accurate reference material? No, but I don’t think the author would want me to, either.

      It’s like freakonomics. It is both true and not 100% accurate at the same time.