Comments on: Revise and Resubmit

By: Gavin

Gavin — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:00:58 +0000

The other nice thing about the 3 volume set is that you can see Skidelsky becoming a better economist as the project proceeds. The economics in vol 1 is much shakier than in the final volume. Of course, it’s still a great read. Reader ranks above lecturer in Oxbridge, so it’s probably the other way round.

By: derrida_derider

derrida_derider — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:37:07 +0000

I opened this comments box in order to make exactly the same points as Brian, only to find he’d beaten me to it. The first two volumes in this trilogy are simply the greatest biographies I’ve ever read. The third was merely very good (Skidelsky sometimes let his English patriotism override his otherwise excellent judgement). Your reasons for using the abridged version are certainly fair enough, but I hope it retains the original’s astute psychology, sense of historic context and (above all) the sense of connection between these and Keynes’ ideas and actions.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:59:06 +0000

Later, in the 1950’s, Joan Robinson was promoted from reader to lecturer or some such. (I don’t know the terms of the Oxbridge hierarchy.) But because she was a woman, she was not permitted to dine at high table, the normal privilege of such academic ranks. However, women could dine at high table, if they were invited guests. So the man who took her old post, some Hoosier commie, whose name I can’t recall, promptly invited her to dine there, which invitation she accepted with great aplomb and relish.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:53:06 +0000

Why are you reading the abridged version? (a) Because I am travelling around the world with it and 1 volume is heavy enough. (b) Because I have a 14 week old baby. (c) Because it’s shorter. (d) All of the above. Take your pick.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:45:00 +0000

Why are you reading the abridged version? I didn’t enjoy volume 3 that much, but the first 2 volumes were two of the best biographical volumes, even I think two of the best books, I’ve ever read. I suppose it helps to be antecedently interested in the Apostles and Moore and Ramsey and startling theories of probability, so maybe my experience doesn’t generalise.