I almost am finished with Brodie's book...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I find her highly critical of Joseph, and sympathetic to the church members. She takes her jabs at all organized religion.



A brilliant woman at that. I don't think it adds or distracts from the book itself, her having a vagina. It might have influenced her scholarship on polygamy, and it did influence her on her feelings and viewpoints of Joseph's aesthetics.

For a woman to be critical in her time would be revolutionary, but today it's neither here nor there.




His analysis of Joseph is what is straining in the book. She attempts to connect dots that may, or may not have existed, by connecting the stories, examples, and experiences of the people intimately associated with Joseph. I think she does a fantasticate job of nailing the feelings of the saints, the feelings of the people associated with Joseph and the situations surrounding the early members. Her insights into early church membership, relationships with the prophet, comings and goings, missteps and achievements are highly worthwhile and stand the test of time.

The content would be shocking and troublesome for some members, for others it might reiterate certain feelings, and for others, a good read to gain a different perspective on the man of our restoration.

I guess Mormonism, if I weren't a Mormon would not be an interesting read. Numerically, we're insignificant, haven't made significant contributions to arts or science, and have but a brief history. I'm amazed at the nitpicking and the conclusions she is willing to make.

The flaws of her relentless attacks on her core subject make it almost unreadable for me.

What one person calls scholarship is another man's trash.

Why do people that attract persons such as the infamous Tanners see her work as "scholarship"? Her connections are so tenuous as to be ludicrous.

And I know many on the outside felt Nibley came across as crass, but he points out some very valid critiques of her work.

I suppose y'all disagree, but if some little ninney sitting in Ogden, who wasn't related to the prophet and wasn't female, the work would NOT have been published and nobody would have read it.

Remind me, what novel historical techniques did she innovate, that historians weren't using before her and which historians still use today. Do people hold up her work on Thomas Jefferson as a model of anything? Why not?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The flaws of her relentless attacks on her core subject make it almost unreadable for me.

A telling admission. Clearly you have not read it.

Her other biographies were well received in their day. It's not that common that books remain forever in print. The Jefferson biography is still cited as being the first to show that Jefferson had chidren by Sally Hemmings.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The book is not perfect; what book of ambition and moment is? I could show you passages in the greatest works of literature that are terrible.

The reason the book endures is three-fold:

First, as you note, despite its flaws as a work of scholarship, it's extremely well written; it tells a gripping tale as well as a classic novel.

Second, it's easy to lose site of her innovation; but her biography of Joseph Smith was revolutionary in her approach and its reliance on many original documents she personally unearthed. She identified influences on Joseph, drew connections, and brought to light sordid and illuminating facts about his life and early church history that really are unchallenged to this day and are a starting point for people like Bushman (okay also a mainstay for creeps like the Tanners; still, the facts stand basically unchallenged). She broke completely new ground partly because until her no one with her traning and intelligence cared enough about her subject. Her passion for it burns through the pages. A facinating read is the story of how she came to write the book.

Third, the book's many virtues completly overwhelm its flaws. Hugh Nibly tried to savage her in a publication called "No Ma'am that's Not History" and made an ass of himself; he went for the capillary and came off sounding sexist, pompuos and mean. It was his low point.

It's the only book I'm aware of about Mormonism that is a genuine classic and will remain in publication long after you and I are gone from this material sphere.

Well I don't like near histories. The most recent one about Joseph Smith was unreadable as well. It was well-researched but boring as hell.

I prefer histories of Rome, of Greece, of Egypt, of China, or old Europe. Those works impress me more.

Although I've started a work on Alexander Hamilton but just barely.

My comments are NOT sexist, because in opinion, if a man had written those exact words, nobody would have read it.

The very facts that pigs such as the Tanners use it as their bible is proof of its flaws.

I have tried reading Brodie, but cannot for the life of me see what is so "gripping" about it. I don't like Bushman's style either.

I liked the McKay book better but it dragged as well.

In reality, I'd prefer to read a math text than some of these histories. Actually I like math I just can't do it any more.

[All-American]

Hey, now, he said ALMOST unreadable. Ask him the questions, but don't put words in his mouth.

As for Jefferson, many historians consider her work on him to be a laughable attempt at history. I had a mission companion who went to a very liberal California University, where that book was the textbook example of how NOT to write history.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Nibley's response to Brodie is OK, but I think Marvin Hill's critique is stronger. Still, Newell Bringhurst's 1996 book "Revisiting No Man Knows My History" is the best book on the subject I've ever read.

I agree with Archaea's critique of her tendency to play mind reader. I thought it was a worthwhile read, though.

[Quisqueyano]

I posted the link to Nibleys critique. He wrote a preface to it 13 years after it's initial publication. He admits his first critiques was a bit hasty. Only to point out that with the passing of years, the actual lack of scholarship by Ms. Brodie was even more egregious.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

A telling admission. Clearly you have not read it.

Her other biographies were well received in their day. It's not that common that books remain forever in print. The Jefferson biography is still cited as being the first to show that Jefferson had chidren by Sally Hemmings.

Yes, but other historians, one at the University of Nevada Reno resoundedly rejects that premise, and the DNA evidence is far from conclusive.

There was ten or fifteen years ago a History professor at UNR who made Jefferson his life's passion, not LDS, and was convinced Brodie was an idiot, and never knew anything about Jefferson. I know that doesn't meet legal standards, but I"ve forgotten his name, not having conversed with him for well over a decade.

We will never settle the Henning debate, but from what I've seen, the evidence is far from conclusive.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It's the only book I'm aware of about Mormonism that is a genuine classic and will remain in publication long after you and I are gone from this material sphere.

Could be, but you at least should give Bushman's book a read sometime.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Good heavens, Fusnik. You read this book on your honeymoon? That is beyond bizarre.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Archea, with all due respect, this is nonsense. I don't see anyone giving a rat's ass about Steve Benson's or Nibley's daughter's diatribes against the Church. The book on the merits is of a very high caliber. I will agree Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven is bad; why don't you actually read No Man Knows My History, and with and open mind? The portions where she phsychoanalyzes Josheph are most easily criticized, and most often cited by apologists. However, these passages are a minor part of the book, and the phsychoanalyticl approach to history is, whatever its merits, now a mainstay. She pioneered it with this book. Your attack sounds very provintial, and, quite frankly, sexist.

I have read Brodie's book and I agree it is a good read, but I also think she too often goes out on a limb and my problem with it is that she fails to make sure the reader knows when she is going out on a limb and when she isn't. Her extrapolations are rather remarkable and frequently untenable.

You are presenting the precise reason I think most active LDS dislike Brodie's book. She writes very well. She researched very well. She could have used her writing to inform her research in several different ways and she chose (perhaps of honest consicence perhaps not, I have no idea) to pursue the path that was most difficult for the church. This came at a time when the church in Utah was beginning to reach out to the greater world and the book undermined some support for those efforts, I think. If she wrote poorly, then no one would care. If she wasn't a woman, fewer people would ahve noticed, I think, at the time that book was published about this church. Becasue she is a wmaon with writing skill her book obtained a degree of visibility that annoyed supporters of the church becasue it was publicized in ways that the gosepl can't be and becasue it tended to reinforce the negative stereotypes that so many had of LDS culture and theology and its origins all while parading as fact when it is a mixture of fiction and fact with no clear line ever drawn (not unlike the Memorisa of Hadrian).