The Making of Golden Gate Park, The Early Years: 1865-1906, by Raymond H. Clary

[shannon_a]

I'm playing around with goodreads, so I may stop using this journal to talk about the non-fiction I read. Here's what I wrote on goodreads about this crappy book:

A horrible book. I actually gave up after 50 or so pages, because it's so bad.

First of all, it feels like a regurgitation of historical facts that the author found, thoughtlessly vomited onto the page with little order and no care for whether they're important or not.

Second, the author often introduces topics without giving them a good basis, leaving the reader trying to figure out what he's talking about. (Frequent references to locations within the Park with no corresponding maps anywhere around often made this problem worse.)

Third, the author is terribly biased. He constantly whines about his hobby horse, that Golden Gate Park shouldn't have any buildings and should be exactly as it was planned in 1870. He also pretty baldly states that the people he doesn't like are bad people, without giving much of the supporting evidence (or, heaven forbid, letting the reader decide for himself).

Well, now I can stop wasting time reading this. Unfortunately, it's put me off a bit from reading the follow-up volume by Herb Caen.

Comments

[catwithclaws.livejournal.com]

however, at least Herb Caen could write! I wonder if he wrote just to have something better quality :P I grew up on Caen's collums so I suggest giving his book a go. And if good, let me know because that sort of history is totally my thing :)

[shannon_a]

I do expect to read it eventually, as I also have respect for Caen. Will let you know what I think when I do.