What are you currently reading?

[SonicMan46]

Hello M - well, I guess the first question is the meaning of provocative - in the context of this book, I think that 'stimulating & controversial' would be appropriate - Nicholas Wade is discussing the emergence of the 'modern' human species, esp. around the period of 50,000 years ago?

In this presentation, the author is indeed making many 'stimulating speculations' based on both known (and unknown) facts supporting much of his interpretations on recently better understood genetics related mainly to the sex chromosomes (i.e. Y & X) - this 'stuff' is really fasicinating and much is left to be discovered - this is only the beginning of our understanding - the book is indeed provocative!

As a physician, I was in medical school back in the late '60s, genetics was fasicnating to me then (and now) - my best friend was earning his PhD in genetics @ the time in one of the best programs then in the USA (U of Michigan) - I could have easily pursued this area - the current understanding gleamed from the human genome is just astounding in the last 30+ years - for anyone interested in the transition of human evolution, an understanding in this recent genetic data is crucial - not sure that I can say much more but await even further elucidation - just a beginning!      Dave

[M forever]

Thanks for the explanation. I still don't quite understand why you say "provocative" because, while some of the new insights suggested by genetic research certainly go against some commonly accepted wisdom (although when it comes to prehistory, most people will agree that a lot really is just speculation), the author is very careful in how he lays out and interpretes his new "evidence", he always points out where it could be wrong and why, and where it contradicts other evidence, and what appears to be the most likely interpretation at this time, or where we simply need a whole lot more data before we can begin to speculate how it all fits best together. I am still in the middle of the book but I find this attitude very refreshing and honest. He doesn't set out to prove any new theories (neither of his own nor of anyone else), he just gives us an overview over what we seem to know at this point, and what we don't know.
Do you think some might find it "provocative" despite this very careful approach, simply because they don't want some things to be like recent new evidence suggests they might be?

[SonicMan46]

Thanks for the explanation. I still don't quite understand why you say "provocative" because, while some of the new insights suggested by genetic research certainly go against some commonly accepted wisdom......

Do you think some might find it "provocative" despite this very careful approach, simply because they don't want some things to be like recent new evidence suggests they might be?

I don't believe that we are disagreeing at all - again, I guess the question remains what 'provocative' means - stimulating & controversial - still 'open' to question - I think this is still appropriate in discussing the evolution of the 'modern' human species in that critical period 50,000 years or more ago - I believe that Wade has summarized the current information well, but having read this stuff since the early '60s in my first anthropology courses, and trying to keep up w/ the newer research ever since, these ideas keep changing - just don't think that all is known at present despite 'how convincing' an author might be in his or her presentation - Dave 

[M forever]

just don't think that all is known at present despite 'how convincing' an author might be in his or her presentation - Dave 

Why are you saying that? Didn't I say

...or where we simply need a whole lot more data before we can begin to speculate how it all fits best together...
...an overview over what we seem to know at this point, and what we don't know...

Do you personally think he is roughly on the right track, or do you see areas in which you would completely disagree, things which jump at you as "this can't be because it obviously contradicts these and these facts"? Reason I am asking is because I used to be extremely interested in the general subject of human development and prehistory as well as early history, but I have really lost track in the last 10 years or so, so when I am reading this, I am coming back to the subject as someone who has missed a lot of the information that has become available in the meantime, and I am wondering, where does this book stand in that spectrum? How "centered" or "balanced" does it appear to be?

[SonicMan46]

Do you personally think he is roughly on the right track, or do you see areas in which you would completely disagree, things which jump at you as "this can't be because it obviously contradicts these and these facts"? Reason I am asking is because I used to be extremely interested in the general subject of human development and prehistory as well as early history, but I have really lost track in the last 10 years or so, so when I am reading this, I am coming back to the subject as someone who has missed a lot of the information that has become available in the meantime, and I am wondering, where does this book stand in that spectrum? How "centered" or "balanced" does it appear to be?

Hi M - please realize that this is not my field of expertise, despite an avid interest since the early 1960s - I probably read 3-4 books a year on this & related topics, and have a handful of DVDs on the subject, but I do not delve into the scientific journals quoted by the author - I have enough to read related to my own specialty in medicine.  As a scientific writer (and not a scientist), Wade does a great job at putting together a vast amount of recent literature - he summarizes this information well, and also states that the 'scientists' writing & discussing these topics often will disagree w/ each other.

However, Wade does take another approach throughout the book after reviewing the 'scientific' data in speculating on the development of humans physically, mentally, and culturally - is he always right or at least close to right in many of these speculations?  Well, I think he offers some well thoughtout reasons based on the current data available, but not all would obviously agree (just a perusal of some of the Amazonian reviews is of interest).  For myself, I think many of his explanations are likely correct (or at least in the right direction) - does he always 'hit the bullseye' - I don't really know, since many of these events postulated are just not known - just as one example, 'modern' humans emerged from Africa around 50,000 years ago - I'd agree that is pretty much accepted (others might say earlier?), but what were the reasons?  Competition for food, wunderlust, acquisition of language, cultural changes, etc. - how were some of those related to genetic changes in the populations - I don't know.  Wade paints a broad canvas but one can still question the 'fine' brush strokes - but, hope that you are enjoying the book.   

[M forever]

I am, but there could be more pictures!!!

[DavidRoss]

Pictures are good.  Especially in books about Grace Kelly.

[karlhenning]

Curiously enough, this thread's resurgence reminds me that, while I went as far as buying a (replacement) copy of Don DeLillo's White Noise, I haven't read it yet.  So, into the bag I pop it!

[SonicMan46]

I am, but there could be more pictures!!!

LOL!    I always like a lot of pictures - the book(s) go much faster!

Currently finishing up After the Dinosaurs: The Age of Mammals (2006) by Donald R. Prothero - plenty of great pics & charts - mainly on the Cenozoic period and the evolution of fauna & flora of the times, emphasizing mammals (not a whole lot on man) - not an 'easy' read and helps if one has some fundamental knowledge of the topic - but I've been absolutely astounded by the vast amount of data/information that has been discovered and gathered on earth's history in this era! 

[Shrunk]

Curiously enough, this thread's resurgence reminds me that, while I went as far as buying a (replacement) copy of Don DeLillo's White Noise, I haven't read it yet.  So, into the bag I pop it!

A favourite of mine, though my wife couldn't get past the first few chapters (She found it too "clinical").  The middle section, "The Airborne Toxic Event,"  is a very fine piece of writing.  Thought it's a clicheto say this, this book is only more relevent now than when it was written.

[M forever]

Currently finishing up After the Dinosaurs: The Age of Mammals (2006) by Donald R. Prothero - plenty of great pics & charts - mainly on the Cenozoic period and the evolution of fauna & flora of the times, emphasizing mammals (not a whole lot on man) - not an 'easy' read and helps if one has some fundamental knowledge of the topic - but I've been absolutely astounded by the vast amount of data/information that has been discovered and gathered on earth's history in this era! 

All that is not true, however. I have been told that someone named God put the dinosaur and other so-called "fossil" remains remains in the earth to test our faith.

[Renfield]

All that is not true, however. I have been told that someone named God put the dinosaur and other so-called "fossil" remains remains in the earth to test our faith.

But I preferred the version where Noah somehow fails to put them in his ark and they all drown.

[Brian]

Curiously enough, this thread's resurgence reminds me that, while I went as far as buying a (replacement) copy of Don DeLillo's White Noise, I haven't read it yet.  So, into the bag I pop it!

Do you read in a bag, sir?

[Brian]

Pictures are good.  Especially in books about Grace Kelly.

[SonicMan46]

But I preferred the version where Noah somehow fails to put them in his ark and they all drown.

M & Renfield - well, I don't get into those discussions anymore @ my age (use to make to many people doubt their faith!  ) - but I agree that Noah would have needed a 'fleet of arks' and certainly some arks 'docked' on other continents, like Australia!   

For me at the moment, back to something related to classical music:

George Enescu:  His Life and Music (1990) by Noel Malcolm - interlibrary loan - based on a recommendation in the Enescu Thread - becoming fascinated w/ this Romanian composer/performer/conductor/teacher & an apparent genius - a good read so far! 

[Kullervo]

The Travels of William Bartram



Bartram was a naturalist based in Philadelphia in the time before the American Colonies declared independence. When England received Florida from Spain, they sent him to survey the area and make a general study of the native people, flora and fauna. Apparently his descriptions of nature were an influence on the Romantic writers just appearing at the time. It is very interesting to read a view of the "Old Florida", before it was cleared off and covered with cheap strip-malls and Panera Bread.

As much as I hate not finishing a book, I had to stop reading this about halfway through. It is obviously a very important text, being one of the first written descriptions of Florida and the Southeast US, but his prose is exceedingly dry (he was a naturalist, not a writer), and filled with long passages of pious Quaker moralizing. The descriptions of the natives are interesting simply because they give a glimpse at a race that has essentially disappeared entirely. It's a shame that there hadn't been someone with a real understanding of human behavior to document these people. The descriptions of the landscape and natural life are interesting for me, someone who's known this place his entire life, and has lived here for several years, but the descriptions are pretty repetitive — as beautiful as the forests and wildlife are here, there is not much to differentiate one part of North Florida from another.

Instead, I'm reading Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter and House of Seven Gables. 

[val]

"Historia dos Lusitanos", by Pedro Silva

A short book, very incomplete, but a good modern introduction to the society and History of the Lusitanos, that people of the mountains that resisted for more than a century to the Roman invasion.

[karlhenning]

Do you read in a bag, sir?

Seldom, if at all.

[orbital]

The Ball and The Cross. Interesting, so far. The theses presented for two opposing world views are pretty well known ones, but in the context of fiction, they read like new.

[Christo]

Nothing. No, it isn't.