Comment by constantius
1 month ago
I'd genuinely want to understand why we have such a different understanding of that comment.
Surely the title can't be taken literally, otherwise the book would be the size of wikipedia, no?
I didn't say the topics left out were obscure, but arbitrarily chosen. Can some book titled "How the world works" that talks about economy be criticised for not talking about effective communication or table manners?
And re the undervaluing, I mentioned that myself, but surely we can't expect every book to include arbitrarily chosen topics that happen to be undervalued? Hawking's book doesn't mention wealth inequality for example.
Not wanting to argue, I just don't understand why I'd see the original comment as out of line while you see mine in the same way.
I didn't take the parent comment to be dismissive or false advertising or that the parent commenter is even that upset about anything. It's just constructive criticism. The original comment says they will "probably read it"! I think we should all be more generous of each others comments.
Of course the book can't talk about everything but it claims to be maintenance of everything, and in general, there is a tendency to overlook the role and impact of marginalised communities in the histories. It's fine that the author hasn't done it, it's their book, but it's important to mention here because it could help the author go deeper into their point. Do you not think exploring those topics would be interesting in this book given the blurb? I certainly think it's an interesting point.
> No mention that for millenia we were mending our clothes, cleaning our houses, maintaining our food systems.
The omissions that the parent comment mentioned aren't arbitrary by the definition that we have been doing them for thousands of year.