Just read all of Cradle of Gold in one sitting and my butt is numb from not having moved for the past few hours (Note to self: next time, set timer as a reminder to get up and stretch every twenty minutes). I have a tendency to become completely immersed in a subject when reading and forget about time/reality...which I really should avoid lest I end up with deep vein thrombosis. I meant to spread out my reading over the past week but left everything to the last minute, per usual.
I enjoyed the book a lot though--it's a study of Hiram Bingham, his "discovery" of Machu Picchu, and the ensuing dispute between Yale and the Peruvian government over ownership of Incan artifacts brought back by Bingham to the university. What strikes me about Cradle of Gold, in addition to the fascinating subject matter, is that it's well-written and relatively nuanced. Its weakness is that it doesn't pose or answer any real analytical questions, but at least it's not simply a rambling narrative of endless detail à la David McCullough. Oops, did I just say that out loud? I apologize if that's blasphemous to anyone. Seriously, though--David McCullough isn't a good historian. He's just not. I don't care that he's won two Pulitzers and sold a zillion books. Commercial success does not a good historian make. But I digress.
Interestingly enough, Cradle of Gold was written by a guy who graduated a year behind me at Yale and is currently a Ph.D. student in Latin American history at the University of Texas-Austin (Hiram Bingham himself did his undergrad at Yale and pursued his history doctorate at Harvard). Impressive. What I could have accomplished had I not left Harvard...oh, who am I kidding? I was writing about the 1970s as a transformative period of global economic interdependence and market liberalization using the Trade Act of 1974 as a framework. No one wants to buy a book about that. I suppose McCullough is on to something, writing on topics that millions of people actually want to read despite the fact that he makes no new contributions to the existing body of historical scholarship. The academy be damned. But I digress again.
Anyway, the reason that I picked up Cradle of Gold in the first place is that my friend CT invited me to her book club and it's the first book up for discussion tomorrow. I'm looking forward to hearing what the other girls thought. The reading list for the rest of the year looks like this:
The Tiger's Wife, Téa Obreht
I enjoyed the book a lot though--it's a study of Hiram Bingham, his "discovery" of Machu Picchu, and the ensuing dispute between Yale and the Peruvian government over ownership of Incan artifacts brought back by Bingham to the university. What strikes me about Cradle of Gold, in addition to the fascinating subject matter, is that it's well-written and relatively nuanced. Its weakness is that it doesn't pose or answer any real analytical questions, but at least it's not simply a rambling narrative of endless detail à la David McCullough. Oops, did I just say that out loud? I apologize if that's blasphemous to anyone. Seriously, though--David McCullough isn't a good historian. He's just not. I don't care that he's won two Pulitzers and sold a zillion books. Commercial success does not a good historian make. But I digress.
Interestingly enough, Cradle of Gold was written by a guy who graduated a year behind me at Yale and is currently a Ph.D. student in Latin American history at the University of Texas-Austin (Hiram Bingham himself did his undergrad at Yale and pursued his history doctorate at Harvard). Impressive. What I could have accomplished had I not left Harvard...oh, who am I kidding? I was writing about the 1970s as a transformative period of global economic interdependence and market liberalization using the Trade Act of 1974 as a framework. No one wants to buy a book about that. I suppose McCullough is on to something, writing on topics that millions of people actually want to read despite the fact that he makes no new contributions to the existing body of historical scholarship. The academy be damned. But I digress again.
Anyway, the reason that I picked up Cradle of Gold in the first place is that my friend CT invited me to her book club and it's the first book up for discussion tomorrow. I'm looking forward to hearing what the other girls thought. The reading list for the rest of the year looks like this:
The Tiger's Wife, Téa Obreht
Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer, James L. Swanson
The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood
White Tiger, Aravind Adiga
Cutting For Stone, Abraham Verghese
13 Reasons Why, Jay Asher
The Descendants, Kaui Hart Hemming
Feel free to read along with me.
Feel free to read along with me.
Machu Picchu, November 2010 -- I can't remember if J or I took this picture
Billboard in Cuzco -- photo by J
Hey! It was actually a loan. There was even a contract and everything. The Peruvian government lent Yale the Machu Picchu artifacts for temporary display and study as recognition that Hiram Bingham had found the lost city. Yale never returned them, they basically breached the contract. Peru has sued them a couple of times, and Yale is slowly returning certain things, but they still keep quite a lot of artifacts (stolen artifacts). -JAC
ReplyDelete