Very Short Introductions: S/D

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The Oxford University Press series. I like the graphic design, and the type of things they are covering. The fact that some subjects are quite broad and others are relatively specific somehow makes the whole thing more appealing. (What will they publish next?) I guess most of them are pretty broad, actually. I can't say I have read (m)any, but they look appealing.

(I hope I didn't ask this before.)

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 9 July 2003 12:45 (twenty-two years ago)

These are sort of the more idea-oriented equivalents of the books on flags, bugs, armor, and so forth, that I liked to read as a kid.

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 9 July 2003 12:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I note the one on Derrida is being written by one of my old tutors. He was a goalkeeper too.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 12:51 (twenty-two years ago)

i am doing the one on rockism

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 13:28 (twenty-two years ago)

it has been rejected as i. far too long and ii. not yet delivered

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 13:29 (twenty-two years ago)

i love these, rockist. it was easy for me to find faults with the wittgenstein one, but i expected that; the rest of the philosophy ones i've read have been pretty good. they allow themselves to try to sustain arguments instead of just reiterating overly reductive summaries of philosophers' work, and they generally do a great job of doing this in the space allowed. also they're sexy. (book-sexy.)

the books on the bible and koran were very informative.

if it matters to you, some of these are just republished versions (not even edited in any significant way) of older books, not always from oup. and in the case of whichever one is by scruton (the kant one, maybe), the whole volume is part of his survey of german philosophers that's a much better value (but much uglier).

― Josh (Josh), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Josh, I was a little disappointed to realize that a lot of these are reprints, but at least some of them are newly commissioned.

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 9 July 2003 22:54 (twenty-two years ago)

it has been rejected as i. far too long and ii. not yet delivered

Another great work overlooked by a myopic publishing industry.

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 9 July 2003 23:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the main problem with the reprints is that often the newly commissioned ones benefit a LOT from the author being confronted with the problem of writing something simultaneously short, comprehensive, non-reductive, AND enticing to a relative newcomer. then they tend to be written more as if the author has this one chance to convince the reader that there is this great thing to spend further time learning about. (one alternative: well this is abt X so clearly it's worth knowing abt and I am just writing abt it in this little book because you are too lazy to read the original sources.)

only one I have not finished = the one on logic; I know all the material and was reading to see how they motivated it for their audience, but I guess that wasn't enough.

I wish I saw more of the history ones in stores, as they would go further toward enticing me into areas I am completely ignorant of. the philosophy ones, which I find all the time, are nice but I don't exactly need them.

― Josh (Josh), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 23:27 (twenty-two years ago)

http://michaelnicknichols.com/images/bk-brutal-kinship118.jpg

― Dada, Wednesday, 9 July 2003 23:59 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.