Sunday, June 17, 2012
Hakim vs Wood
I think both books have pluses and minuses. The real question is what is the purpose behind my reading? If I'm reading for entertainment I would choose Hakim hands down. If I'm reading for straight facts then I would select the Wood book. As I stated on previous posts, I really liked the Hakim book but found myself distracted so often that I would have to set the book down and come back to it. The Wood book was not as easy to read as far as flow. However, it got right to the point. I tried comparing black fighters and slaves in each. Once again, I had to reread Hakim because I found my self reading all the side bars. I read right through Wood's version and had a clear idea what point he was trying to make. I am not the typical reader though. Someone else might not be so distracted by side bars and pictures as I am. As for using either book in my class, Hakim's book would be the better between the two. Overall, I really wouldn't use either one unless I am reading directly to my students. (First graders!!!!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree with you about the two books. Although, I would choose to Hakim's book over Wood's. I get distracted by anything, so the side bars didn't really bother me at all. I actually kind of enjoyed the extra info. And it seemed a little easier for me to read.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you recognize that Hakim and Wood are writing for different purposes and different audiences (which was the point of the assignment, in part).
ReplyDeleteWe need to remember what our needs are as we look for sources and information. If I just want a quick fact check, I'd go to Hakim. But if I want a broader context, I'd go to Woods. If I want a story, I'd go to McCullough's 1776. If I want an indept analysis, I might go to Tom McGuire's two-volume set about the Philadelphia Campaign.