Book Review, Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium by Johnathan Harris
All of the evidence given is better than Johnathan’s speculation. This book is misguided with his wishful thinking and is riddled with unannounced rumors he’s responsible for. Here’s a quote. It’s on page 114 with no reference to another book printed in ink. “He and other money changers and bankers may well have been appreciated for the service that they provided, possibly enabling even those of relatively modest means to store what money they made in good times as a reserve against times of dearth, although specific evidence for this is lacking.” Such talk is poetic yet not historic. Numerous passages throughout the book are just guesses Harris tries to force onto his readers with extreme simplicity and definitions so obvious you can guess them from visiting Hollywood. Seriously, I’m grossly offended. How can a scholar take up so many books for reading only to cough out things which are extremely basic? Constantinople is a better subject for geniuses as opposed to simpletons. Demand for notoriety by Harris leads to his horrible miscalculations because he can’t even represent his own beliefs well to the point of academic accuracy. So many readers like this book. Why? Miscalculations by Harris can’t be taken lightly in the academic world, for, through him wanting to be something he’s not, Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium serves as another example of a poet who has more evidence on money than guaranteed speculation. Russian honey is mentioned, as are quicklime and electrum, but his overall vision is hindered with too many repetitions of basics which never go into a more special meaning. Constantinople is old. That’s obvious, so why enunciate the concept with pretentious variations on language? Just because someone writes a whole damn book doesn’t automatically mean there’s vivid designations in writing; in fact, from all of Harris’ extreme simplicity, my eyesores are worse than larger-than-life meanings in the nature around me. McDonald’s sounds pretty good at this point. Historians! Please don’t make poetry into history and refuse to tell others it’s poetry. We have to learn when to turn the poetry button off. Johnathan tries way too hard to be honest even when any and all honesty only leads to fictional storytelling and dramatic output of text visuals. Really gross, souls must be crying. Making matters worse, Harris has gotten into information concerning pedantic folks who linger around Constantinople’s quarters with vehemence, distaste, and unverified truths. Even truth needs a helping hand. You can’t just display hot text in front of peers and expect them to meld into clay no one has to worry about. What a shame. I feel bad for the readers who are fooled into the book’s simplicity just for the sakes of lazy, casual thinking of which so many Americans nowadays promote with the retarded notion of equality. Differences arise! That’s what makes us human. Respect ought to be given where it’s due, not merely where it’s needed. Jonathan’s referential data on coins is imprecise and uncompromising for intellectual dispute; for that matter, we’re not going to care so much for a coin’s name when there’s a call blowing in the wind for Constantinople’s destiny and religious privilege. He announces that there’s religious rumors, but not that there’s his rumors. Honestly, he’s really underrated his impact on society. But I’m not being negative; I’m being real on this piece of junk because it fails miserably compared to true academic fervor. Despite my approach to criticism there’s heat in my body for what comes next out of history books should this review be disguised by somebody else’s doubts.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2338813.Constantinople
No comments:
Post a Comment