Customer Reviews

East Asia: Tradition and Transformation, Revised Edition

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book, originally published in 1973, is authored by John K. Fairbank, Edwin O. Reischauer and Albert M. Craig. It has been revised and updated over the years so that it has remained a very popular upper level undergraduate and graduate level text in many college courses on Japan, China and South East Asia.

It is an excellent survey of these countries written by the United States'foremost scholars of East Asian history. The book suffers only from the attempt to cover too much ground. The histories of countries as vast and important to the world economy as Japan and China cannot be adequately told in a combined volume especially when lumped together with the additional nations of Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia.

Still the volume is familiar old chestnut for an entire generation of history students and looks as if it will remain so for the next generation. The book is extremely well indexed and leads the reader directly to the topic desired, even if the reader will eventually have to go to other volumes to get the whole story on that topic.

I'm reading this book for an lower division undergraduate course in East Asian History. It's better for an upper division course. The book is well indexed, however, there is no bibliography. The only extra is a section that acknowledges the illustrations, which is not very helpful for me. There is a timeline of the dynasties of each country in the back of the book, but it is so tiny it is not helpful. Anyone know of an East Asian wall chart timeline? The topics of each dynasty focus on economics, arts and literature, military, Buddhism and Confucianism, growth and development, declines and failings. East Asian history is interesting. However, there is way too much information in this one book which makes it very difficult to follow, recall, and understand. If instructors choose to use this book, please provide additional optional resources (like a timeline wall chart) because this book does not point the reader to seek other resources. A good book will have a bibliography. Since this book does not, I conclude the authors think this is the only book one needs to read, which it is not.

This is a fine book, one I have assigned for years in my introductory classes along with de Bary's Sources of Chinese Tradition Vol. 1. Now, however, there is a new edition of Sources using the newer pinyin romanization system. Reischauer still uses the old Wade-Giles system. So I can't assign it any longer - I can't expect my students to have the two basic books in the course use different romanizations. Could not Houghton-Mifflin redo Reischauer using pinyin? It could be done with no effort by using a simple replace function on a computer.

Having had my own problems with pinyin, I understand J Barry's frustration when he says: "This is a fine book, one I have assigned for years in my introductory classes along with deBary's Sources of Chinese Tradition Vol. 1. Now, however,there is a new edition of Sources using the newer pinyin romanization system. Reischauer still uses the old Wade-Giles system. So I can't assign it any longer - I can't expect my students to have the two basic books in the course use different romanizations. Could not Houghton-Mifflin redo Reischauer using pinyin? It could be done with no effort by using a simple replace function on a computer."

I do hope that Houghton-Mifflin holds its ground and replaces nothing. The Chinese PRC decreed the Pinyin system in 1957, co-opted most Western academics (especially the younger generation) in the 70's, dealing a major blow to traditional, a-political scholarship. Of course you "can't expect your students to have the two basic books in the course use different romanizations." That was the whole point -- force out the "old Wade-Giles system", and the scholarship that employs it. Simple politics. . . and it works; evidently the price we pay for "progress" -- toward what?

Yes, E.O.Reischauer (1910-1990) still used the "old" Wade-Giles system " - would not "traditional" be a more neutral adjective? -and he might well object to changing what he had written simply to conform to current political fashion. . .Actually,I suppose the coauthor, John K. Fairbank (1907-1991), is responsible for keeping Wade-Giles, since he was the China expert and Reischauer represented Japan. I don't know anything about Fairbank's political leanings -- only that I was told that he could become furious when addressed as "Fairbanks," which (he would impatiently explain) "is a town in Alaska!"

I remember buying this textbook back in the '80's for a course at Harvard taught by the professors themselves. Back then, the book cost [money]. I can't believe they now want over [money]for it. That's insane. Sure, it's full of factual information, but it's hardly unique information -- these are historical facts available anywhere, with very little opinion or perspective or even personality woven in. (Indeed, the book is as dry as the Gobi Desert.) Furthermore, they first published this book back in 1975. Updating it could not have required that much labor. Publishers are getting away with extortion knowing they have a captive audience (students) required to buy their textbooks. Yes, it's a good textbook. Is it worth over [money]? Not for a Chinese minute. Here's hoping that the publishers donate their profits to North Korean famine relief.