Genius. I blame the journals for this, though, which encourage a standard “memorable hook: a collection of searchable keywords” structure. When you’ve written half a dozen of those and come to publish your book project, you’re expected to punch it up a bit, and there’s your result.

When I come to write my own books I plan to use HOWTO structures, like: “HOW TO build a world-girdling empire with nothing but slaves and slave-like labor relations” or “implanting and nurturing false consciousness in colonial workers: a beginner’s guide.”

That wasn’t even my first choice for a title. I wonder if it’s not too late to change it back to The Basques of Eden: Language, Culture, and the Invention of History.

Ehhh . . . could be, Doc!

I just poohed my shorts laughing at that one. I think every humanities/anthropology first book is titled this way.

Effectively, yes. But it sounds like you couldn’t make up your mind which always inspires confidence in the work product.

But isn’t the part of the title following “or”, effectively a subtitle?

Serious comment: Do you really think that’s a positive blurb? “A very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care” translates in the browsing reader’s mind as “G-d that was long and boring, even if you care about such things.”

As long as its not a ripoff of the Dr. Strangelove subtitle. I read an article by Jim Cramer that used that cliche, and from then on I became convinced only morons use it.