(no subject)

[skygiants]

Recently I keep having conversations with people that go like this:

me: allow me to show off to you how much I know about the Roman Empire
interlocutor: yes good job you've named four emperors, congratulations
me: it's because I just recently read this book on murder in ancient Rome! the book was very interesting and asked thoughtful questions and contained a lot of useful information thoughtfully presented --
interlocutor: sounds great!
me: BUT, also, unfortunately, it's written entirely in BUCKLE UP TWITTER style --
interlocutor: ah.
me: but the information IS really good, I just wish the book would stop apologizing to me for giving it to me! I'M READING THIS BOOK BECAUSE I WANT INFORMATION! PLEASE STOP ASSUMING THAT I'M BORED BY THE INFORMATION I PICKED UP THE BOOK FOR!!!
interlocutor: I see this book left an impression.
me: yes. sorry. would you like another factoid about the Roman Empire.

The book is called A Fatal Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (as many of you already know as I have seen many of you already post about this book in more or less exactly these terms, and of course you were all right.) It's a detailed, thorough examination that begins by asking the question of what kinds of killings actually count as murder, and whether you can call something a murder if it's only considered as damage to an individual rather than a crime against the state for which retribution is enacted by a state, which in many cases ancient Rome didn't -- which is an angle I would never have thought to consider and provides a really good lens for through which to examine Roman society as a whole. The author works her way down from the big famous Imperial murders through patricides, matricides and street crime down to the perfectly-socially-acceptable-in-Rome deaths of gladiators and slaves with specific examples and useful analysis and I really enjoyed reading it, except when I hit a phrase like this and wanted to throw the book across the room:

Before we get there we need to see how murder became so central to Roman politics, and I'm sorry but it involves a lot of politics and chat about land reform policies, and it's awful. We can get through this together; I believe in us.

STOP! STOP THAT!! JUST TELL ME ABOUT THE LAND REFORM! I PROMISE YOU I TRULY WANT TO KNOW!

Comments

[seekingferret]

*Cracking up at the thought that anyone would ever think you didn't want to know about Roman land reform policies.*

[skygiants]

RIGHT????

[happydork]

But. You're reading the history book. To find out. About the history.

I'm so confused. It's as if fanfic stopped in the middle to be like, before we get to the kissing I'm sorry but we've got to have some mutual pining while sharing a bed, I know, I hate it too, no one is here for this, but we can get through it together.

[loligo]

LOL! Exactly like that.

And also... who doesn't want to hear about land reform? I mean, just in general, I feel that that is a solid topic. But maybe that's just me! *g*

[genarti]

RIGHT, that's what got me when Becca described this authorial approach! Like, as much as I hate BUCKLE UP TWITTER threads (and oh, do I hate them), I will grant them that at least they're making an assumption about their audience that may be based on an assessment of the OP's actual followers' tastes. For this... who do they think is going to be reading a book about the history of Roman murder, if not people who are interested in Roman social history??

(True crime podcast aficionados who are just here for the murder, I guess. But there are about a zillion other books they could read if they didn't want to get Roman social history along with all the murders -- and every true crime podcast aficionado I know is also a massive nerd, although to be fair most people I know are massive nerds -- so it still seems like a baffling conclusion to draw.)

[china_shop]

It's as if fanfic stopped in the middle to be like, before we get to the kissing I'm sorry but we've got to have some mutual pining while sharing a bed, I know, I hate it too, no one is here for this, but we can get through it together.

LOL!

[skygiants]

THANK YOU FOR THE MOST PERFECT ANALOGY TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS BAFFLES ME. "it's awful" MY GOOD DOCTOR SOUTHON WHY DO YOU THINK I AM READING THIS TEXT

[aella_irene]

This makes me so mad. I might really enjoy this book, but "Buckle Up, Twitter!" makes me grit my teeth

[bookblather]

I do kind of enjoy that style, personally- I like the chattiness. It feels like I'm sitting with a friend in a bar and they're going off about a topic I want to learn about. But I can absolutely see where it would get Very Annoying Very Fast.

I super agree about the way that she reframes Roman society, though. I was just listening to a history of ancient Rome in the car and it's... very different in its framing, mostly very "ancient Rome was purely a hierarchical state" without any consideration of how that might have affected the lives of anyone not wealthy men... drove me a bit mad in the "Women" section particularly, where the author was like "well LEGALLY women had to have a male guardian at all times BUT ACTUALLY it was totally fine because this wasn't rigorously enforced" and... my dude... it was enforced...

Augh, sorry, that turned into a totally different rant. I enjoyed this book a lot! I can see where it would get frustrating and I am sorry you had that experience.

[skygiants]

I don't mind a certain degree of chattiness -- I really enjoyed, for example, The Invention of Anne Boleyn, which also very much felt like sitting with a friend in a bar while they drunkenly exclaimed about their paassions -- but I think where it starts to grate on me is where it feels like the author is assuming things about me-the-implied-reader that I find it irritating to have imposed on me. But I know that it works very well for some people, and indeed has clearly worked very well for this book since many people I know have read it!

But yeah, I think her framing is very smart and does a good job of showing the sort of inherent contradictions of the society and the various double standards that were held without automatically focusing on the most privileged individuals of society just because we have the most documentation about them -- and also is very good about demonstrating where the gaps in our knowledge are and the assumptions we can't make, which is something I always appreciate in a history book.

[sophia_sol]

That is so aggravating, I much prefer when the author of a book with lots of details is super excited to give them to you and assumes you'll find it fascinating too. Like...you wrote this book, presumably because you find these things interesting, so why not assume you can carry your reader into enthusiasm with you!

[skygiants]

Right! I don't mind casual chattiness in a history book per se but I DO mind being told that neither of us is interested in something that we both patently are!

[chestnut_pod]

Why even read this book if you are not absolutely balls-to-the-wall about land reform??? Like a NORMAL person, god.

[skygiants]

Right! Like, this book had what I assume is the normal and desired history effect of making me want to know infinitely more about land reform, not less!

[sovay]

STOP! STOP THAT!! JUST TELL ME ABOUT THE LAND REFORM! I PROMISE YOU I TRULY WANT TO KNOW!

. . . Do you want recommendations or has the book got them in the bibliography?

[skygiants]

Either way the book is now back with the library and I forgot to note down whatever bibliographic sources it contained, so I would welcome recommendations!

[starlady]

As a trained historian with training in a few fields, including ancient Rome: it's always land reform. So crucial, so boring, so unappreciated.

I will say this though, this book has a great cover.

[skygiants]

The thing is, I've heard quite a lot of references to the Gracchi over the years and it is delightful to me to finally understand the land reform in a little more context! I'm genuinely thrilled!

It does have a great cover, and for the record I did zip through it (I read it cover to cover in the course of a very long hair appointment.)

[rmc28]

GIVE ME THE POLITICS AND THE LAND REFORM!

Which us to say, while this book sounds fascinating I will clearly have to wait until I'm in a mellow and forgiving mood to read it.

[skygiants]

Right, I do genuinely recommend it for the content but mellow IS the mood.

[st_aurafina]

This sounds so good!

...she co-hosts a history podcast with writer Janina Matthewson called History is Sexy

*SMASHES SUBSCRIBE BUTTON*

[skygiants]

:DDD I hope you enjoy if you read!

[vass]

OMG, THANK YOU FOR THE WARNING. I had never heard of this book, but I follow Sarah Taber on Twitter, so the land reform policy is exactly what I WOULD want to know, yes, show me the money!, and I don't like when people assume I-the-reader can't be interested in something "dry". (I mean, I'm the one who failed accounting three times and am still yelling about how important it is that accounting is an account, it's a way of presenting a narrative, just because there are numbers doesn't mean it isn't telling a story, also did you know about Leonardo's boyfriend?)

[skygiants]

That's the thing, like, what I want out of a history book is, yes, entertaining and juicy stories but also wrapped up in the full context of what they meant and why they were significant and how much we really know about it -- I love to get it! You're providing it to me with an interesting explanation! We should both be happy about this!

[raven]

ahhhh I thought I was the only person who hated that sort of thing, I have the actual phrase “buckle up” muted.

[happydork]

Ilu

[osprey_archer]

Never have I read a book simultaneously SO FASCINATING and yet SO INFURIATING in its insistence on apologizing whenever things got good. OH MY GOD, this is not a middle school cafeteria, I PROMISE I will not dump my mac and cheese over your head when you go on too long about the Gracchi. PLEASE go on about the Gracchi. There IS no such thing as going on too long about them.

I found the contextualization about Roman society good enough that I went on to read Southon's earlier book Agrippina, and it's much better about letting its geek flag fly without apologizing for it all over the place. I especially loved the way that it delved into the unreliability of all the available sources: they were all written decades if not centuries after the fact, the authors had their own emperors they needed to suck up to, ancient Romans believed devoutly in the statement "well-behaved women rarely make history" and they did NOT mean it as a compliment to the rare woman who did, etc etc.

[troisoiseaux]

OH MY GOD, this is not a middle school cafeteria, I PROMISE I will not dump my mac and cheese over your head when you go on too long about the Gracchi. PLEASE go on about the Gracchi. There IS no such thing as going on too long about them.

I don't want to armchair-psychoanalyze the author, here, but it definitely felt like a. she expected the selling point of her novel to be the "murder" instead of "in ancient Rome" part / her target audience to be listeners of true crime podcasts who aren't interested in ancient Rome per se; and b. she seemed kind of self-conscious about her interest/expertise, which as you said, makes sense in the context of a middle school cafeteria but less so in a book that she wrote and published and I am paying to read, you know? (We're not the Cool Kids, Emma! We're the fellow Weird Kids! Stop trying to write for the Cool Kids! Embrace your tribe!)

[brownbetty]

It's not like you're reading a book about air-conditioning repair, which you might be doing out of something besides unmotivated interest!

[skygiants]

I'm trying to decide how I would feel if a book I were reading about air-conditioning repair suddenly took a chapter to talk about land reform instead and tbh I wouldn't be mad.

[lirazel]

This is so interesting--I feel like the book I'm currently reading (Forget the Alamo) is doing a similar thing and it irritates me as well. While I hate the "buckle up tumblr" stuff (which is where I experience it, seeing as I do not do Twitter), I would have thought that a conversational-style history book would at least be an interesting thing to read. But alas. I just don't like it at all. I guess other people do, though? It's certainly got very good ratings. And I think the actual research of the book is good; I just wish it were in a different style.

Before we get there we need to see how murder became so central to Roman politics, and I'm sorry but it involves a lot of politics and chat about land reform policies, and it's awful. We can get through this together; I believe in us

GROSS I HATE THIS.

[skygiants]

I don't know why it's so difficult to find nonfiction books that meet my general preferred standards of:

a.) well-written
b.) well-researched
c.) consistently clear and accurate about the difference between source documentation and speculation
d.) neither condescending nor annoying

but it's hard to even get three out of four and all four seems near-impossible!

[lannamichaels]

That sounds like a topic I would like, but a book I would throw across a room.

[genarti]

RIGHT, this is exactly my dilemma.

[copperfyre]

But but but - surely if you’re reading a book about Roman history you’re at least vaguely interested in, uh, Roman history?!? This sounds fascinating content wise but aggravating in execution, but I think the former outweighs the latter for me so I shall see if I can get hold of it! Thanks for the rec! (And the warning re: tone!)

Currently I’m listening to a podcast about the history of the Byzantine Empire and truly I am learning that the root of everything is actually land policies and reform.

[skygiants]

I hope you enjoy it! I did find the actual contents really fascinating and do truly wish I had taken notes.

It does seem like it's really important to get the land reform as grounding (so to speak) on almost every topic!

[evelyn_b]

Ha, exactly. I don't necessarily always mind the BUCKLE UP style as such, but. . .for heaven's sake, we're all nerds here; I promise you that I, the reader who deliberately bought a book about ancient Romans of my own free will, will not judge you for caring to much about land reform.

[skygiants]

Sometimes it bothers me more than other times, but in this case I desperately want Dr. Emma Southon to believe in herself and in me -- as indeed she says she does -- to an extent that presupposes that we can both handle some basic historical context!

[lizbee]

But if you're reading ANYTHING about Roman history, a baseline level of interest in land reform is assumed! (My interest was sub-baseline, which is why I did not do grad school.) THAT'S HOW ROME WORKS! MURDER AND LAND REFORM! NOT ALWAYS IN THAT ORDER!

[skygiants]

I admit my interest in Roman history did largely originate with the Roman-set mystery novels I used to read as a teenager, but that's why I need to learn about the land reform now!

[luzula]

...I have never heard of this "buckle up" style, and given people's responses to it, it seems I'm not missing much!

[skygiants]

I'm trying to think of how to describe 'buckle up Twitter' style and it's like -- short, punchy, expletive-laden, full of oversimplifications because you are writing an essay of sorts in which every 240-character segment needs to feel both complete in and of itself AND like an advertisement to read & retweet the rest of the thread. Some of the threads can be fun but often they do feel fairly condescending to me, especially in a book where the author does have the space to explicate context and should not have to feel a need to be entertaining every single paragraph.