2 posts tagged “review”
Phil Zuckerman’s “Invitation to the Sociology of Religion” is an introductory text designed to be built upon with future readings. Because of this, his book is not very challenging in its contents or composition, nor offers much opportunity for provocative thought with its claims and arguments; rather, the book serves as a high-level overview of “the ways in which religion is affected by various aspects of society and, simultaneously, the ways in which various aspects of society are in turn affected by religion” (15). While Zuckerman might have purposefully designed this piece to be inviting in its straightforwardness, I found the efficacy of his simplicity lost in the book’s verbosity.
While Zuckerman’s statements are neither incorrect nor invalid, the author’s writing is both garrulous and distracting. In some ways, I’m almost impressed at Zuckerman’s ability to fill 129 pages full of text that likely could have been communicated effectively in a fraction of that length. Looking at the table of contents, I would be surprised if this entire book could not be compressed to a half-dozen PowerPoint slides. By that, I mean that Zuckerman’s “main points” are often drowned within a vast sea of ambling anecdotes and loquacious tales (much like this post, no?). Example: At the top of page 51, five pages into Chapter 3, Zuckerman writes “All of this can be summed up as follows: we generally acquire and absorb our religion from other people, usually those to whom we are personally close or are significantly attached.” Despite his one-sentance summation, the author continues for an additional 10 pages. Although I agree with Zuckerman’s perceptions on the social influences on religion, I found his composition to be wearisome.
I imagine composing a historical analysis of perpetual events spanning thousands of years would be challenging simply for the wealth of nonessential qualifying chaff one would have to include to communicate the full story: international politics, realities of the times, natural events, etc. Kurlansky, thankfully, does a nice job budgeting his focus on that which is most important to the tale, while keeping the high-level historical meter running quietly in the background to orient the reader.
My only disappointment in reading "Cod," was Kurlansky's writing style which simply didn't jibe with the manner in which my brain comprehends words. Added to this were my high expectations for the book; I really wanted to love it. After the first chapter, however, I got that awkward feeling in my stomach like when I'd proofread my highly-respected friends' papers in college and learn they were utter dolts at putting words together. Kurlansky's writing isn't technically flawed like my friends' of yore, mind you -- his vocabulary is rich and his concepts are sound. I just wish it read with a little more elegance.
