J. Rufus Fears (1945–2012)

I liked this well enough (hence the three stars), but I felt it was (a) very brief, and (b) presented from single, narrow viewpoint (which the lecturer, J. Fears, quite clearly declares he is doing.)

To be fair, I just finished (a month or two ago) The Bully Pulpit and I think I was looking for something as ranging and in depth (both!) as that. This lecture series does not set off to do any such thing. Dr. Fears sets out to discuss how Churchill supported and advanced liberty; in this, he is quite successful. But this is a slice of the man, a slice of his effects even, and not really 'Churchill.'… (mais)

Ugh. Two stars is a generous review for this one.

This professor is so condescending and pompous, and the myths shared in this lecture series are all very traditional. We do seven lectures on Troy, and NOT ONE Indigenous or Native myth? No thank you. I've listened to other much more inclusive lecture series from The Great Courses on mythology.

Add to this that the author kept mis-naming the Native tribes and spent time at the end really feeding into white colonial entitlement. And that's the content. I didn't see any "life lessons" in these myths. A couple times, he referenced the way myth aligns with historical fact, but mostly, he just retold Greek myths, American folklore, and Roman and Medieval history from his perspective. There was a lecture about Gilgamesh at the beginning, but it felt very much included from a perspective of "well you can't skip Gilgamesh, it's the oldest known myth" perspective and not real interest.

So this lecture series is a hard pass from me. The concept as told in the title of the lecture series is interesting, but I despised the professor and the biased content and I don't recommend this at all.… (mais)

Var mjög svekktur yfir þessari fyrirlestraröð. Hélt að ég myndi hlýða á vangaveltur yfir hvaða vitneskju og lærdóm hægt væri að draga af liðnum tímum. Hins vegar fjallaði höfundurinn J. Rufus Fears um hvaða þekking og snilli fyrri einstaklinga hefði leitt til mótunar á stjórnarskrá Bandaríkjanna. Að auki setti hann fram nokkur lögmál um söguþekkingu sem hann leitaðist við að sanna s.s. að menn læra aldrei af sögulegri þekkingu.
Bæði var ég ósáttur við "lögmál" hans og hvaða atburði úr heimssögunni hann valdi máli sínu til stuðnings. Einnig hnaut ég um atriði líkt og þegar hann kallaði það hetjudáð að ísraelskir uppreisnarmenn í virkinu Masada frömdu fjöldasjálfsmorð þegar þeir voru við það að tapa baráttu sinni við Rómverska herinn. Að lokum fannst mér stórskrítið að tala um prófessora og hryðjuverkamenna á tímum þegar hugtökin eiga ekkert við s.s. fyrir árið 0.… (mais)