|
I started listening to Revolutions after being suggested it via Twitter, and I'm really enjoying it. I suppose that means I should listen to his History of Rome podcast?
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
The thing that annoys me most about In Our Time is that they're incapable of properly compacting the topic to the show. They basically spend the first half of the show setting up the basics of the topic, realize they have yet to actually talk about the basic topic, cram it in as much as possible, then rush the to wrap it up in like two minutes. The diversity of the show is great and I realize that's just a product of "hey we brought some professors in to talk about _____", but it's silly sometimes due to them trying to rush out their conclusions. Also the episode about Shintoism was pretty hysterical due to the professors trying to aim for the least-simplified explanations possible and then mostly ummming and being very unhelpful as Melvyn Bragg tries to get to the bottom of it. It's really not that complex guys!!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Up to about episode 50 on Mike Duncan's The History of Rome. I have been listening to them at work when busy with less intensive tasks, they've certainly helped the day go quicker, though I don't think my rate of consumption is going to make them last nearly long enough until Revolutions starts again. I guess after that I'll give that History of China podcast a go.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
The only Mike Duncan jokes I don't super care for are when he feels the need to make a Star Trek or Babylon Five or similar comparison. "Nerd reference!" seems always kind of dumb. Has he said what revolutions he intends to cover? The French one is going to probably be great; I look forward to seeing if he follows its entire extent through to Napoleon's usurpation, especially if he talks about General Dumas  He was cool as hell. It'd be interesting to see if he tries tackling some of the more peculiar "revolutions", like the brief one in the 1860s.
Zorak fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
In Our Time drives me insane with its "30 minutes of drawn up build up, wait we forgot to get to the core topic, rush that poo poo out". I dunno if its just a matter of historian cat herding issues over lack of cooperative planning. Or editing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:This literally always happens when its a biographical episode. The historians go into it talking about the broad political and social movements of the persons day for the first half, then they get whipped into covering the guys life in a few minutes. This is really frustrating sometimes because they'll start in on an interesting anecdote about them, but Bragg will cut them off. The other frustrating thing that happens a lot is when the historians feel the need to diverge on extremely minor details / qualms that are immaterial and just waste minutes on things that don't matter. It's like "great, thanks for clarifying your personal opinion on minor detail #349, it only took you 1/20 of the entire program" If it weren't for the sheer volume of topics  AzraelNewtype posted:This happened nine months ago, so he may internally have a more finalized list by now, but this is at least a straight answer on the subject. Cool, it's about what I expected. Not surprised he isn't touching more modern (and hence contentious) revolutions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:It's not the fault of the editing as they record it live. It's just impossible to get historians to be concise. I realize, I was saying "well maybe attempting to get a bunch of historians to assemble a structure from thin air without a degree of post editing is going to result in this, maybe they should edit."[/i]
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but the researchers behind the really excellent BBC Quiz Show QI have a new strange-facts orientated podcast called No Such Thing As A Fish. Soundcloud, iTunes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Zorak posted:I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but the researchers behind the really excellent BBC Quiz Show QI have a new strange-facts orientated podcast called No Such Thing As A Fish. Soundcloud, iTunes. Having actually listened to it now, can confirm that it is really good. Stravinsky posted:Zorak, what do you actually do for a living? Its something science based I figure based on your posts, but just wondering. Rocket science.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is Revolutions getting a bit more bogged down in the military action in the American War of Independence versus the English Civil War? It sort of felt like he devoted more time towards the political side of things / the political situation of what was going on during the English Civil War episodes than he has during the American Revolution eps, which always seemed to me to be the more important side of the overall narrative. Not to say the military stuff isn't important or fascinating (it is), I just find the lack of the political side amidst all of it a bit amiss. Zorak fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Gyges posted:So is Revolutions staying with America through the Constitutional Convention? Well, as Mike mentioned, most of the actual revolutionary aspects of the American War of Independence were sort of toned down during the war itself to maintain unity between the states. It's at this point where poo poo gets rocky as the states try to actually determine what the hell they care about. It's one of the most amusing parts given the reverential aura people assign to the founding fathers that half of them hated the other half and the Constitution we ultimately got was a matter of fierce bordering on violent debate and concessions, and that soon to be bipartisan furor has continued to this day. The French Revolution is going to be difficult to cover since its character changes incredibly as it actually expands out from France leading to the French 'liberation' of the Italian peninsula into Republican government, until it's ultimately co-opted and assimilated by Napoleon. It's an incredibly fluid and very much confusing thing as political power essentially went wild. Cataffy posted:I got a boring dataentry job for the summer and have been tearing through Revolutions these past few days. Not knowing much about the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell besides pop culture osmosis and Leviathan I got the feeling that Duncan might have whitewashed Cromwell just a little bit, especially after having a cursory look at Wikipeda. Any goon historians want to weigh in on this? Cromwell is a pretty complicated person and depending on where you lean politically you're going to take away very different things from him and the English Civil War. A statue of Cromwell stands outside the House of Commons after being erected in 1899.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Yess, Revolutions is going to be sticking with France until 1899, which means it'll be following the transitional wars Revolutionary France fought with its neighbors through at least the invasion of Egypt. I can only hope that means we'll touch on the elder Dumas, that guy ruled.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Antti posted:That's a typo right? Because I think you need a very generous reading to say Revolutionary France lasted until 1899. D'oh, yeah, I meant 1799. Stupidly, I actually caught that typo when making that post, then apparently made it immediately against when "fixing" it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 05:28
|
|
