I am nearly finished with the book and one of my initial impressions is that Wood's book is a supreme work of literature, not just historical scholarship. By this I mean that Wood's arguments are clear, concise, and his writing is active in a way that makes it easy for the reader to visualize his arguments, as well as create a sense of place.
I bring this up because I feel like historians can have a tendency to forget that their work is a literary subject and write tracts that are on the dry side, to be charitable. Further, Wood's work is intended for a broader audience than academia, a praiseworthy goal. Public understanding of history is a vitally important venture and I would recommend this book to any historically inclined person that I know who isn't looking for a heavy slog through academic prose.
I agree. He took the time to write well and intelligibly. Both he and Morgan had a gift w/ the pen.
ReplyDeleteI also agree. I specifically liked how the chapters transitioned so crisply. One of the better books I have read in awhile!
ReplyDeleteThe book was definitely an enjoyable read. However, my concern is whether he included all of the necessary information. He constantly references the Enlightenment and how it helped shape both American and English beliefs. However, he never presents an adequate explanation of the Enlightenment. He references specific virtues that came from the Enlightenment, however, he presents it as a coherent and defined movement. He does not present the fact that there were serious divisions within the writings of Enlightment thinkers.
ReplyDelete