The Top Nonfiction Tag!

[@EntertheBook]

Thank you! I am super honored to be weaponized. ☺I adore the fact how those of us here (channels and not) inspire and encourage one another. Pre is an outstanding book. And I am cool with the fact the world was created in 7 literal days being symbolic or you believing it's fiction, but I will say respectfully, I honestly believe God did the creating and it's nonfiction to me. Owl is a sweet book! That was one of the first books Olive turned me unto coming to KZbin. Kennedy sounds like a good book- and honestly if the author is upfront about their relationship to their biographical person I can accept just about any bias within its context. I would like to learn more about Mary Queen of Scots too - and wine and calzones seems reasonable to me. Thank you again!

[@kiranreader]

this was a great list!! i really loved hearing the passages from the henry the eighth biography

[@BrandonsBookshelf]

Love the sentiments about Kristin’s video. Wonderful list. Very interested in Mart and King Henry so will have to check those out. Hope to do your tag this coming Tuesday.

[@Deep_in_the_Reads]

Thanks for the recommendations! I'd like to get a little more well-rounded before making a list like this myself. I read a lot of nonfic but a big majority of those are all history books (my favourite being A People's Tragedy--on the Russian Revolution--by Orlando Figes)! This month I'm finally getting around to Barbara Tuchman and reading A Distant Mirror by her, so that'll be the book I'll try to highlight for Nonfic November. Also planning on getting into ancient historians soon, so thanks for reminding me to put Herodotus on the top of my list! :D

[@AnthonyMiller1]

I started reading Pepys on 1st January 2020 one entry per day and I will continue until I've finished the diary at some point in 2029. Some entries are more illuminating than others. I'm reading the Latham version.

[@peterg1646]

Love those Bantam classics over your shoulder.

[@theramblingreviewer5150]

Excellent video. The excerpts you read from Henry the 8th and Greece And Troy make both books sound absolutely wonderful. I might add one to my Nonfiction November list. Also, you called Theodore Sorenson, Theodore Sturgeon one ... hmmmmmm ... do you have another November event on the mind?

[@jamesholder13]

Awesome tag!

[@DuaneJasper]

Another corker Steve! This reminds me that I still haven't read The Group by McCarthy..

[@rdubstacks1289]

I too love the Holy Bible as my first pick for non-fiction. Thanks for all the great vids!

[@saintdonoghue]

I love the Bible too (but the world wasn't created by magic)!

[@revenantreads]

The Henry VIII bio sounds wonderful.

[@geocraftsman]

Personally, I don't like seeing the author's glossy face on the back cover. I don't know whether or not this is a snobbish opinion but I prefer to feel like the stories I am reading came out of the ether.

[@saintdonoghue]

Hah! Really? I guess I can see that concept of 'out of the ether' depersonalizing books, but something about that design - big picture of the author, no boilerplate - just appeals to me ...

[@bignatesbookreviews]

The man who mistook his wife for a hat by Oliver sacks, when breath becomes air by Paul kalathini, mountains beyond mountains by Tracy kidder, arguably in cold blood by capote? Off the top my head

[@mdavidmullins]

I've been journaling probably my entire adult life without even really calling it that or thinking of it in those terms. I've always needed to work everything out on paper. I can't imagine that my endless navel-gazing would be of interest to anyone but myself.

[@davidmurphy5142]

I’ve more or less come around to your point about how we view great works of history, but I will say that when I’ve noted something is out of date it’s often out of fear that book is the only thing on the topic someone will read. And Shirer’s book raises problems not only because archives have opened since publication, it was criticized by historians at the time it came out for not being up on scholarship as well as how crudely he treats German history (they argue). Klaus Epstein wrote a classic scathing review of it. So I agree we shouldn’t discount or ignore it, but when people who don’t usually read history, or third reich history specifically, feel they want to read something about it I pause on recommending it. What if they don’t read anything else? Or don’t for some time? Are they going to come away with wrong impressions or wrong facts?

[@saintdonoghue]

Like everybody, I smiled at that savage review - but honestly, I don't understand it. What "wrong impressions" would somebody come away with, if Shirer's book was the only one they read? Meaningful wrong impressions, that is, not the kinds of things a reviewer or a WWII buff would consider meaningful! I can't think of a single one.

[@davidmurphy5142]

Haha yes, sorry I’d don’t mean to imply you hadn’t read that review. I added that parenthetical because I think a lot of the reviews, Epstein’s specifically, miss Shirer. And that’s a good point, okay he got some details about unification wrong, so what? Scholars and history buffs are ALWAYS going to tediously find incorrect facts or something to quibble with. Is that really going to be distracting or harmful to the general reader? Probably not. But when dealing with the sum of them, I suppose I find it more comfortable to recommend something like Burleigh’s book. On the general point, I still think the worry someone might be reading one or two books on a topic - or maybe just getting started with it - justifies thinking about how up to date it is, however classic the book. Obviously we read for enjoyment, but with history we’re reading to learn as well. So it’s natural, to me, for that to be a concern here where it isn’t for fiction. But maybe you don’t think with great works of history it’s usually too much of an issue.

[@davidmurphy5142]

@BluelaserRyan well I’m not sure how meaningful it is to weigh one against the other. Evan’s trilogy is excellent, of course. Also, a couple of the points I raise here Evans mentions in the preface to the first volume concluding Shirer’s book isn’t really fitting for a modern audience. I don’t really get what he means by that. It might be worth saying that Evans and Shirer are doing different things in their history, with Evans being more academic, for lack of a better word, and trying to systematize whereas Evans had been reporting from Germany and very much writing from that experience. Shirer is also more broad and sweeping than Evans who can be a lot more granular with the point of stringing together details into competing themes and narratives. Hopefully that isn’t too vague. I recommend both, as I’m sure Steve does (and be reviewed at the very least the last volume of the trilogy, which should be easy to find)

[@davidmurphy5142]

@BluelaserRyan I’m not sure I agree with that. But it could be what he meant. Haha I get that, but trust me they both readier quickly than you imagine. Shirer especially.