![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The human mind is capable of doing amazing things. When you think of if, it's rather amazing we haven't made more technological advances. The first airplane was designed without the aid of computers, and the general principles of aerodynamics are not much changed since that time. Someone decided that the funny stuff growing in a petri dish might make a real good medicine, and it has. Both of these were the results of specialized thinking. General thinking though is what has lead to the far ranging works of Leonardo da Vinci and his contributions not just to art, but to engineering, mathematics, botany and more. Ben Franklin was another generalist contributing in social and physical sciences.
While not in the league of either of the last two men, I'm happily a generalist, and do occasionally take exception to specialists who seem to think their knowledge of one small slice of a field grants them authority across their entirety of even that field. I'm mostly a historian and have focused most heavily on American Revolution, but I've read a reasonable amount on the American Civil war, military history and thought, European history, and a smattering of World War Two, among other areas. This doesn't grant me the ability to pass judgment on Japanese feudalism, pre Mongol Chinese history, Canadian parliamentary precedents much less dictate to the world which item in ones history is more important than any piece in the others history.
So while taking a break from cleaning my office and organizing my bookcase I was slightly dismayed to come across the amazing bungle by Rolling Stone in their attempt to list the 500 greatest songs of all time. They are really a specialist and should probably stick to that specialty rock & roll and not pretend they are as familiar with country, rap, and the rest oft he spectrum. If they had, i could forgive them for not including Nat King Cole's Unforgettable (maybe). It's even possible I'd forgive them for there being only one Supremes song, and one Madonna song on the list. The fact that they actually think Eminem's Lose Yourself is a good song is fine, but its not his best, not the song that makes most people think of him. then there's the fact that it is way above any 2pac song and the Notorious B.I.G. is completely left off the list (Juicy or Hypnotize should be there). Whitney Houston, and Maria Carey are likewise sorely under represented. Almost any of these can be overlooked when writing a general list. But leaving Rush off your list when you are supposed to be a rock magazine.
That last exception would be like a writer claiming to be a mythology expert, and leaving vampires, elves, and dragons off their list of well known mythical creatures.Sure you can do it, but it damages your credibility. Where am I going with this ramble? Mostly to my point. Writers need to be generalist in world terms, and specialist in terms of their universe. By being a generalist and reading a variety of things.
It helps let you write another epic fantasy, or space opera or urban fantasy and put your own stamp on it. By adding in a focus on economics instead of various epicurean delights. Or if you decide to write a story with a military bent, it's probably better to actually read a few books on military history, rather than using wikiquotes or just going off what you've read in other fiction.
And which generals, military philosophers will impact your thinking, Clauzewitz is more quoted than Sun-tzu and are the two best known, but Napolean, Alexander and others are certainly worth studying.
Similarly a mixture of philosophy, mythology and religious ingredients will vastly impact the way your characters think about the world. Trying to adapt the mythology of desert dwellers to your invented cultures lush island dwellers probably won't work to well. Kant is just a touch different in world view than Santayana, likewise feeding your main characters back brain from the Book of Mormon or Mein Kampf, than Russian or Australian Aboriginal folk tales.
Seriously, as much as I like a good comfortable fantasy based on western European history from time to time, there is so much else to chose from.
And well, it does get boring figuring out which great war is being replayed ten pages into the book.
While not in the league of either of the last two men, I'm happily a generalist, and do occasionally take exception to specialists who seem to think their knowledge of one small slice of a field grants them authority across their entirety of even that field. I'm mostly a historian and have focused most heavily on American Revolution, but I've read a reasonable amount on the American Civil war, military history and thought, European history, and a smattering of World War Two, among other areas. This doesn't grant me the ability to pass judgment on Japanese feudalism, pre Mongol Chinese history, Canadian parliamentary precedents much less dictate to the world which item in ones history is more important than any piece in the others history.
So while taking a break from cleaning my office and organizing my bookcase I was slightly dismayed to come across the amazing bungle by Rolling Stone in their attempt to list the 500 greatest songs of all time. They are really a specialist and should probably stick to that specialty rock & roll and not pretend they are as familiar with country, rap, and the rest oft he spectrum. If they had, i could forgive them for not including Nat King Cole's Unforgettable (maybe). It's even possible I'd forgive them for there being only one Supremes song, and one Madonna song on the list. The fact that they actually think Eminem's Lose Yourself is a good song is fine, but its not his best, not the song that makes most people think of him. then there's the fact that it is way above any 2pac song and the Notorious B.I.G. is completely left off the list (Juicy or Hypnotize should be there). Whitney Houston, and Maria Carey are likewise sorely under represented. Almost any of these can be overlooked when writing a general list. But leaving Rush off your list when you are supposed to be a rock magazine.
That last exception would be like a writer claiming to be a mythology expert, and leaving vampires, elves, and dragons off their list of well known mythical creatures.Sure you can do it, but it damages your credibility. Where am I going with this ramble? Mostly to my point. Writers need to be generalist in world terms, and specialist in terms of their universe. By being a generalist and reading a variety of things.
It helps let you write another epic fantasy, or space opera or urban fantasy and put your own stamp on it. By adding in a focus on economics instead of various epicurean delights. Or if you decide to write a story with a military bent, it's probably better to actually read a few books on military history, rather than using wikiquotes or just going off what you've read in other fiction.
And which generals, military philosophers will impact your thinking, Clauzewitz is more quoted than Sun-tzu and are the two best known, but Napolean, Alexander and others are certainly worth studying.
Similarly a mixture of philosophy, mythology and religious ingredients will vastly impact the way your characters think about the world. Trying to adapt the mythology of desert dwellers to your invented cultures lush island dwellers probably won't work to well. Kant is just a touch different in world view than Santayana, likewise feeding your main characters back brain from the Book of Mormon or Mein Kampf, than Russian or Australian Aboriginal folk tales.
Seriously, as much as I like a good comfortable fantasy based on western European history from time to time, there is so much else to chose from.
And well, it does get boring figuring out which great war is being replayed ten pages into the book.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
Other military leaders who are worth more than a casual glance
From:
Re: Other military leaders who are worth more than a casual glance
what books have you read on them? Which is the best?
From:
Re: Other military leaders who are worth more than a casual glance
From:
Re: Other military leaders who are worth more than a casual glance
LOL
To that list, I'd add Sargon, Hammurabi, Genghis Khan, Ramses II, David and Jonathan (of Biblical fame), Nezahuacoyotl (for his organizational and diplomatic skills in army building more than on the field prowess), Qin Shi Huang, Archimedes (he was more than a mathematician!), Alcibiades, Ulysses, Geronimo, Xerxes, Darius, and soo many more names that my brain doesn't want to kick up.
I love history. I find more inspiration for my characters from history books than I ever have from mythology and books on archetypes. I firmly believe that there's a reason, in the English language, that you can't spell history without story. :)
From:
Re: Other military leaders who are worth more than a casual glance
From:
book
From:
Re: book
The book shelf in question has two rows (front and back) on each shelf, and some books stuffed in the middle.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: book
From:
Re: book