What I’m Reading

Posted on April 3, 2008
Filed Under Philosophy, Religion |

I thought I’d put up a list of the books I’m slowly working my way through. I usually am reading quite a few at once. Plus the usually situation is that a section of one book makes me return back to read sections of other books. You probably all know the story.

Philosophy

Free Will and LuckAlfred Mele, Free Will and Luck. I’d meant to read this back before I got so busy with work and family that I had to drop philosophy for over a year. I’ve been making comments on it as I read. A lot of the discussions can be found in the Garden of Forking Paths. It’s been quite good at getting me back up to speed in the debates though. I’m not entirely sure I like his style of writing but he’s one of those writers I find myself needing to reconsider over and over again.

My WayJohn Martin Fischer, My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility. A new collection of essays from the main proponent of semi-compatibilism. I’ve only read bits and pieces here and there. I suspect I’ll finish Mele before launching into a full on read of the book. I usually find some flaws in how Fischer approaches things. But, given that I see the appeal to responsibility to be the strongest argument for free will it’s interesting to see someone who argues one needn’t be free to be responsible.

Memory, History, ForgettingPaul Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting. I’m reading this one for a reading club over at LDS-Herm. (And I’m about a week behind) I’m mixed on it thus far even though I’m normally a big fan of Ricoeur. Part of my problem is that he mentions briefly various movements but I’m not sure I agree with where he is placing them. We’ll see how it turns out as we continue. It’s a very, very long book. So we’ll see where he ends up going. There are thus far multiple moves he’s making but one big one is the distinction between memory and memories.

Feel free to join in on the reading club. The more the merrier.

Religion

Millenarian WorldGrant Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism. A very interesting book looking at early Mormonism and the ways their view of the coming millennium was both similar to and different from the other movements in early 19th century America. It’s a tremendously worthwhile read - especially since early Mormonism could be seen as a millennialist movement. What’s surprising, at least to me, is how many of our stereotypes of what that entails are wrong. Probably the best book on Mormon history I’ve read in some time.

Young American MosesLeonard Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses. One of the biographies that started what we now think of as modern Mormon History. (Or the “new” Mormon history if you prefer) One rather wishes that someone would return to the subject since this biography is several decades old now. I’d love to see some done with a lot of the research that has come out the last 20 and especially last 10 years. Still I’m loving this book. It’s tremendously well written. It never gets tedious and is a nice breezy read while managing to also be scholarly and careful. No mean feat.

Comments

15 Responses to “What I’m Reading”

Not to be pesky, but Robert Arrington?

There is a new bio of BY in the works, which I am bullish on. I picked up American Moses a couple of months ago for some BY work I was doing and while I think that it is well written, I think that your observation is correct that there is a lot of new scholarship and analysis that a new volume could easily tap into.

I’m ashamed that I have yet to read Underwood’s volume. I’ve meant to for some time.

Whoops. Sorry, the kids were screaming to go to bed just as I typed that. It’s fixed now.

Who is writing the new BY bio? Any idea on the particular approach they are taking?

Regarding the Underwood book, it’s very good, but does appear to be an expansion of his thesis from way back in the early 70’s. So if you’ve read that a lot will seem familiar.

I think Underwood’s volume is underappreciated. It’s quite dissapointing he hasn’t produced any other books in the last 15 years.

And I second your and J’s comments about the BY bio. And I am looking forward to future work being done on BY.

I should say that I think there is much to be said for the breezy easy to read biography. For instance when I wanted to read biographies of George Washington, Ben Franklin or others I really didn’t want all the nitty gritty that someone focused in the history might wish. I suspect the same is true within our history. Thus while Rough Stone Rolling is a fantastic book it is rough slogging in some places. With Arrington it’s amazingly how well everything flows.

Ideally every area will have a more accessible book on the subject as well as a more involved one. Here’s looking for more involved books on the history of the Utah War and so forth. (Not necessarily the same thing as a BY bio even if it covers a lot of the same time period) Bigler’s Forgotten Kingdom is well written, if a tad biased, but also really isn’t the more detailed kind of book I’d like to have.

One of the biographies that started what we now think of as modern Mormon History. (Or the “new” Mormon history if you prefer)

Even if we go back to the beginnings of research for the book (1970s), I believe the works that started the new Mormon history date back much earlier to the 1950s: e.g., Great Basin Kingdom (or even Juanita Brooks’ Mountain Meadows Massacre).

Newell Bringhurst has written (p. 107) that American Moses was far from definitive when it was published, in that Arrington failed to adequately draw upon the BY correspondence (both incoming and outgoing) and the papers of those who knew and interacted with him. Bringhurst also faults Arrington for overemphasizing Young’s role as church and corporate leader, while failing to grant enough attention to Young’s human side, especially the complex parts of his personality (including flaws, frailties, and insecurities). He also thinks Arrington’s very positive biography is very much a product of the time in which it was written, the Camelot period.

Regarding the Underwood book, it’s very good, but does appear to be an expansion of his thesis from way back in the early 70’s. So if you’ve read that a lot will seem familiar.

As I recall, his dissertation was written in the 1980s.

Bill MacKinnon is publishing several books on the history of the Utah War.

I’d actually found his thesis by accident while doing a JSTOR search. Yeah, you’re right, it was 1981. I’m not sure how I had that in my mind as 1971.

Christopher, while he hasn’t written books, he’s written a large number of articles. Do a JSTOR search and quite a few will come up. (Although many are reviews)

Interesting on the New Mormon History. While of course I recognize Brookes and so forth I tend to think of it as a movement of the late 60’s on. Thanks for the correction.

Clark, Dr. Underwood my MA thesis adviser, so I’m very familiar with his various editing projects, the many articles he’s written, and the many, many conferences he’s presented at. That only makes it more disappointing that he hasn’t produced any more books since The Millenarian World.

btw, your post says “Grand Underwood.” Haha. He’s good, but I don’t know about “grand.” I think you mean “Grant.”

Kathleen Flake, for one, apparently does not think much of American Moses. When asked by Times and Seasons about scholarly biographies of Joseph F. Smith, she indicated that

As for scholarly biographies, until Brigham gets his due, it is unreasonable to expect any others will. I say this for several reasons. The lack of an academic BY bio is more surprising given his significance to American history generally and the amount of 19th century LDS history already written. In comparison, Joseph F’s historical significance is, I think it fair to say, limited to Mormonism and to the 20th century which has captured little interest to date even within the LDS Church.

She didn’t even feel it necessary to mention Arrington’s book as the “best” bio out there.

Sorry. It’s been a very, very busy week. (I was up until midnight Thursday and Wednesday working) Two major typos in the same post. Ugh. Fixed.

There’s no doubt that it is not an academic oriented biography. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing, as I said. I think one can overstate this though. That’s why I said scholarly but breezy. It’s definitely not Rough Stone Rolling. It’s written for folks who want to know about Brigham but not necessarily all the details. I do agree (at least to the parts I’ve read) that it doesn’t engage some issue sufficiently though. But I’ve had this volume on my “to read” list for years now. I’m glad I finally made time for it.

What surprised me about Flake’s comment is that, at least in the circles I’m in, Arrington’s book is considered to be the best scholarly bio of BY. I haven’t read Bringhurst’s BY bio, so I can’t really compare it, but I was a bit stunned when Flake just ignored Arrington.

Ditto. I can see being critical and seeing it as well written but hardly sufficient. But to dish it like that is surprising.

Leave a Reply