No offence to your lecturer, but if he gives students poor grades for writing an essay about one of the greatest authors of all time, he's a bit of a tool
I'd argue if a student hands in an essay on a subject they fully know the marker dislikes, then that's their problem. As much as I like one of my favourite novels The Great Gatsby, I'd never give an anti-Fitzgerald English teacher a Gatsby essay. Good grades in subjective courses are as much down to psychological games as they are to academic excellence.
I'd argue if a student hands in an essay on a subject they fully know the marker dislikes, then that's their problem. As much as I like one of my favourite novels The Great Gatsby, I'd never give an anti-Fitzgerald English teacher a Gatsby essay. Good grades in subjective courses are as much down to psychological games as they are to academic excellence.

An incredible, meticulously researched, breathtakingly powerful account of China post-Nationalists and pre-Great Leap Forward, detailing a campaign of terror and violence and, indeed, reform that transformed a nation. The sheer scale and power of the Party and of Mao's words and twisting public ideals is laid bare, although it offers no great insight into the mind of the man himself; more a general, all-encompassing history of the Chinese Revolution, spotted with anecdotes of some who survived (and many who did not). "Tragedy" is the correct moniker to describe it, for though the Nationalists may have been - in fact, probably were - 'bad', it is impossible to view the Party's takeover as anything other than a tragedy. Even putting aside the mass campaigns of murder and rape, terror and theft, of turning neighbour against neighbour and tearing villages apart, of the utter decimation of China's intelligensia and higher educational institutes and much of its culture, all for the purposes of securing the power necessary to change the country - setting these horrors aside, the Revolution failed to do what it set out to do, killing thousands - perhaps millions - in the process.
As it only covers China's history up to the year 1957, the book ends somewhat abruptly, which is disappointing but difficult to fault.

If you want to continue the story you should read Mao's Great Famine
Piecake, two books I found out about recently that you might find interesting:
![]()
![]()
New Mistborn book out today!
![]()
Nice! My current plan is to finish Aeronauts Windlass from Butcher and then move over to Alloy of Law.
What are the GAF's impressions of Sanderson's Legion series?
Interesting, Ive read this
And found the quite fascinating because it put the Civil War in a more global perspective. Your book seems to do that and then some. It looks quite fascinating and will be interesting to see if and/or how he connects global democratic movements together.
As for the other one, that definitely is an interesting argument and a book that I will read eventually just for that, but I am rather skeptical. From the goodreads blurb, it makes it seem like these royalists would have been fine if the King was the one who was issuing the Stamp Act, Townsend Acts, Intolerable Acts, etc. Maybe he somehow proves that, but from my reading so far on the revolution and the figures of the revolution, I think that is rather ridiculous. But hey, I definitely could be totally wrong, and he might surprise me with some excellent evidence and interpretations, which is the reason why I definitely will get around to reading it.
They were against all of those things because of arbitrary power and the threat to American liberty and rights, not because it was Parliament that was doing it. They would have been against it if the King was doing it as well. Certainly, there were revolutionaries who professed admiration for the English system and wanted a strong executive, but I woiuldnt call these people royalists, monarchs, or people who would have stayed loyal to the Empire if the King ruled over them instead of Parliament. They were still Republicans. They just imbued more of British 'Court' ideology than British 'Country' ideology. The experience of being in the Army during the Revolutionary War, I think, was another major factor that moved people towards a stronger executive and a more centralized, powerful state.
And any sentiment about wanting the King to govern them directly is simply an idea that was quickly disabused that the King actually cared about them, wouldnt do that to them if he knew/had power, and if only Parliament was out of the way then it would be fixed.
But yea, thanks for the recommendations. I think these will be two books that I read after my American history project though since they seem to be a little too niche for what I want to do right now.
Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass.[An American Slave]; written by himself.
Just finished "Go Set A Watchman," and man was it just so . . . meh. Had potential to be a great book, but it screws itself over by pretty much ignoring the events that occurred in TKAM. Definitely could have used a rewrite. It just reads like a first draft at times.
Gonna start tomorrow:
![]()
Have you read Drood? I'd be curious to know how this is.
Have you read Drood? I'd be curious to know how this is.
How's the first one?New Mistborn book out today!
![]()
How's the first one?
The first Mistborn series or the first book of the 2nd trilogy (Alloy of Law)? This is the 2nd book in the 2nd trilogy (so the 5th Mistborn book) which takes place 300 years after the events in the first Mistborn series.
Mistborn is very enjoyable, escapist fantasy with a different take on magic and how it works. It's typical Sanderson worldbuilding and character development and recommended if you like his work. I'm a big fan of the series.
The Final Empire is Book 1.
Ah, thanks. Wasn't sure. Great review for Shadows of Self by the way....if you won't self promote, then I will!
Looks like Sanderson likes your review as well.
Well, I don't know, not having read it! I can only say that it seemed like something you could make a plausible case for based on what I remembered from the Open Yale intro course on the American Revolution that I'd listened to. If you're interested in the author's arguing his case, you might find this response to a (generally positive) review interesting. No doubt the book goes into more detail.
Shadows of Self is technically the first volume of a new trilogy. The Alloy of Law (which features the same characters and sets up Shadows of Self) is technically a standalone novel that creates a bridge between the two trilogies.
The Alloy of Law
(The Wax & Wayne Trilogy)
Shadows of Self
The Bands of Mourning
The Lost Metal (tentative title)
That... doesn't make any sense. Alloy of Law was definitely not standalone.
Maybe not a standalone, but a bridge between 2 trilogies or prequel or even a backstory. Sort of how Red Country was a standalone in the First Law world even though it contained characters from the trilogy.
Finished Flowers for Algernon today. Sad book, but worth reading. It's still $1.99 on Amazon for those interested.