I'm going to be meeting Geoffrey Blainey in a few weeks, supposedly to discuss this book. I don't know how well known he is outside Australia (if at all), but for better or for worse, he's pretty much the foremost historian in this country.
To the general public, he's mainly well known for writing A Short History of the World (of which this is, I think, an abridged version) and A Short History of the Twenty-First Century, both of which I have read and enjoyed.
So anyway, all this begs the question What does one ask about a book like this? beyond the obvious sort of thing about how he chose which events to include and which to not, what does one say? I'm not sure that historiography and all that really comes into it that much, though I should probably, you know, read the book before I say that. But I suspect it's not terrifically difficult to write a short, general history of the world without saying anything too controversial.
SO: if anyone would like to suggest something I could ask him, that would be good and fun! I plan to do some research, beginning with actually reading the book, and can summarise it here if anyone's interested. (I don't hold high hopes.)
Some interesting points in the preface:
Major themes include technology/skills, rise of major religions and geographical factors because of their role in shaping the world. Also "what people ate and how hard they worked in order to earn their daily bread", the power of the moon, stars and night sky on human experience. Furthermore, empires.
In order to not make the book seem too compressed, he tries to vary "periods of fast bowling - or tight writing - with intervals of slow bowling." So he spends a disproportionately large amount of time on stuff like "the influence of the Indian indigo plant on the colour blue." Um, this seems kind of crazy. Will have to be looking out for how that works.
Of course, the dilemma of how much space to allot to the last 150 years. This is absolutely fascinating to me. Blainey says "My relatively cramped treatment of the 20th century stems from a reluctance to permit that century to be as significant, indeed as self-important, as every century seems to those who live in it." A fair point. But from what perspective is he writing? I guess he's trying to be an objective observer, but how useful is that really? Because there's no doubt that a damn sight more has happened to shape our world in the past 150 years than in all the many millions before that.
He's good. He's damn good. He writes beautifully. But I already have questions.
1. Why the title? This isn't a history of the world, this is clearly a history of the human race. Arrogance? If so, whose?
2. He begins with hominids in Africa. Why start here? Is this history, or prehistory? But if one doesn't start here, where else does one start and why?