Comments on: What I’m Reading

By: Clark

Clark — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:46:38 +0000

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

By: David G.

David G. — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:40:20 +0000

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.

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:35:01 +0000

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.

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:00:57 +0000

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.

By: David G.

David G. — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:55:18 +0000

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.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:45:03 +0000

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

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:37:42 +0000

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.

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:08:10 +0000

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.