[tiggybrown]

Has anyone ever read this or read his other book. I really want to read them, any thoughts?

 

[Lothar M Kirsch]

Great classic - go ahead!

 

[Michael]

I sometimes think of that as the bible of vegetarianism. You should definitely read it.

 

[Joe]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>tiggybrown</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Has anyone ever read this or read his other book. I really want to read them, any thoughts?</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Yes, I've read it and think it is worth reading. Many people have been inspired to go veg after reading the book, [dubious claim]<span>which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.</span> [ / dubious claim] In fact, the mass reaction to this book led to the formation of the organization, EarthSave. <a href="http://www.earthsave.org" target="_blank">www.earthsave.org</a><br><br><br><br>
Some of the basic facts in the book have been summarized in a document called "Realities 1989." See: <a href="http://www.duke.edu/web/planv/realities.html" target="_blank">http://www.duke.edu/web/planv/realities.html</a><br><br><br><br>
However, many people have criticized the book as being inaccurate or outdated in some respects. (I believe it was first published in 1987.) And Robbins has written a successor book called <b>The Food Revolution.</b> People who contact EarthSave about errors in or problems with <b>Diet for a New America</b> are referred to <b>The Food Revolution.</b> You can read the first chapter of this newer book on-line here: <a href="http://www.foodrevolution.org/chapter_one.htm" target="_blank">http://www.foodrevolution.org/chapter_one.htm</a><br><br><br><br><br><br>
ETA: The claim about being nominated for a Pulitzer Prize is marked as dubious. It may be more than dubious; it may just be false or at best misleading.

 

[tiggybrown]

I actually ordered both books. I realized that the Food Revolution was newer. I will read both, thanks.

 

[meatless]

I have read Food Revolution twice. It's fantastic.

 

[granolacruncher]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Michael</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I sometimes think of that as the bible of vegetarianism. You should definitely read it.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Yup, It's what "converted" me to vegetarianism and then veganism. I have read both and they are great.

 

[Thalia]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Joe</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Yes, I've read it and think it is worth reading. Many people have been inspired to go veg after reading the book, which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. In fact, the mass reaction to this book led to the formation of the organization, EarthSave. <a href="http://www.earthsave.org" target="_blank">www.earthsave.org</a><br></div>
</div>
<br>
Do you know what year it was nominated? I went to <a href="http://www.pulitzer.org" target="_blank">www.pulitzer.org</a> many times, where they list all nominee finalists (those who do not make it to this level are entrants, which doesn't mean much) since 1980 and I looked at 87-89 and didn't see it. I've been trying to confirm this claim since I first heard it.

 

[Joe]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Thalia</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Do you know what year it was nominated? I went to <a href="http://www.pulitzer.org" target="_blank">www.pulitzer.org</a> many times, where they list all nominee finalists (those who do not make it to this level are entrants, which doesn't mean much) since 1980 and I looked at 87-89 and didn't see it. I've been trying to confirm this claim since I first heard it.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Hmmn, no I don't. Nor did I know that there was any doubt about this claim.<br><br>
Interesting. I'd have to guess between 1987 and 1990.<br><br><br><br>
ETA: The "Book Description" section of the listing of the book on the Amazon Canada website says:<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">A pivotal book nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for Non-Fiction in 1987.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br><a href="http://www.amazon.ca/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325&tag=veggieboards.com-20&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.ca%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0915811812%2F701-7427717-2201101%3Fv%3Dproduct-description%26n%3D916520" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0915...ption&n=916520</a>

 

[jeezycreezy]

I read it but as I live in Canada not much was applicable.<br><br><br><br>
Is Food Revolution more inclusive?<br><br><br><br>
Cheers!<br><br>
TJ

 

[Joe]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Thalia</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Do you know what year it was nominated? I went to <a href="http://www.pulitzer.org" target="_blank">www.pulitzer.org</a> many times, where they list all nominee finalists (those who do not make it to this level are entrants, which doesn't mean much) since 1980 and I looked at 87-89 and didn't see it. I've been trying to confirm this claim since I first heard it.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Interesting. This language from the Pulitzer site seems to suggest that the phrase "nominated for a Pulitzer Prize" is basically meaningless:<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><br><b># Nominated Finalists</b> are selected by the Nominating Juries for each category as finalists in the competition. The Pulitzer Prize Board generally selects the Pulitzer Prize Winners from the three nominated finalists in each category. The names of nominated finalists have been announced only since 1980. Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an <b>entry</b> or <b>submission</b>. No information on entrants is provided.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br><a href="http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/archive.html#terminology" target="_blank">http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/arch...ml#terminology</a>

 

[Tesseract]

I've read both (I only own a copy of DFANA), and I think DFANA is slightly more inspiring, although of course Food Rev has updated information.

 

[Thalia]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Joe</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Interesting. This language from the Pulitzer site seems to suggest that the phrase "nominated for a Pulitzer Prize" is basically meaningless:<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/archive.html#terminology" target="_blank">http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/arch...ml#terminology</a></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
That's kind of what I was thinking, and it bothers me that this idea is spread so widely by the publisher and or author without any clarification or correction. I wrote earthsave about it in a friendly way yesterday. They told me to email John Robbins about it.

 

[Tesseract]

But I wonder if labeling your book "nominated for a Pulitzer Prize" when all it really got was an entry, perhaps sponsored by the publisher, is common practice in the publishing industry. After all, it seems to be a somewhat common phrase in reference to books, kind of like "new and improved" on groceries. Not that I'm saying that excuses it, but I wonder if it's something the publisher did just because that's their standard practice to sell more books.

 

[Thalia]

I found this article <a href="http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2002/000231.html" target="_blank">http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000231.html</a><br><br><br><br>
Whoever had the idea to start saying the book was nominated, I wish John Robbins would start correcting people. Misleading statements like this always get found out and hurt the credibility of the AR/pro veg movement and ultimately the animals.<br><br><br><br>
I liked DFANA at first, but later did not like it because it reads too much like pure propaganda without enough examination of potential criticisms of the arguments made. I also suspect that many of the facts cited are used in misleading ways, but I do not have examples to back my suspicion (I really don't remember any more what had bothered me when I first read it). Pro veg*n people really don't need to bend the facts at all to make a strong argument.

 

[Joe]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Thalia</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I wrote earthsave about it in a friendly way yesterday. They told me to email John Robbins about it.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Hmmn, well, what does that tell you? I mean, if this "error" has been in place for almost 20 years, wouldn't EarthSave have heard complaints about it already? Shouldn't they have a more substantive answer than "write directly to the author"?<br><br><br><br>
Also, do you really think that if you e-mailed John Robbins, your e-mail would go to Robbins himself and be read and answered by Robbins himself? (As it would if you e-mailed me or another person here on VB?) Or would it go to one of his minions, employees, groupies, hangers-on, for them to handle it?<br><br><br><br>
What I've heard is that Robbins surrounds himself with "yes men," that these buffer his contact with the outside world and that that is one of the reasons that there was never a "second edition" or "updated edition" or "corrected edition" of <span style="text-decoration:underline;">Diet for a New America</span>.

 

[Joe]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Tesseract</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
But I wonder if labeling your book "nominated for a Pulitzer Prize" when all it really got was an entry, perhaps sponsored by the publisher, is common practice in the publishing industry. After all, it seems to be a somewhat common phrase in reference to books, kind of like "new and improved" on groceries. Not that I'm saying that excuses it, but I wonder if it's something the publisher did just because that's their standard practice to sell more books.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I was sort of thinking just the opposite. I mean, if all one has to do to claim that one's book has been "nominated for a Pulitzer prize" is to submit 4 copies and pay a $50 entry fee, wouldn't practically everyone be doing it? I may be unusually naive and gullible, but I have never heard of this before it was brought up in this thread--and I've been involved in EarthSave for years, have heard plenty of criticisms of Robbins, was on an e-mail list devoted to criticizing his errors, etc. Also, so far I've only seen two books "accused" of doing this--DFANA and Eternal Treblinka. If this is such a great scam, why only these two books?<br><br><br><br>
Something just does not add up here, as far as I am concerned.<br><br><br><br>
I am also puzzled as to why this criticism is made in an anti-AR website, rather than coming from the Pulitzer Prize organization itself. I would think they would have the responsibility for upholding the integrity of the term "Pulitzer Prize" and would think that they would be the ones either to publicly demand a change in such claims, or denounce such claims, or sue Robbins and his publisher over such claims.

 

[Tesseract]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Joe</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I am also puzzled as to why this criticism is made in an anti-AR website, rather than coming from the Pulitzer Prize organization itself. I would think they would have the responsibility for upholding the integrity of the term "Pulitzer Prize" and would think that they would be the ones either to publicly demand a change in such claims, or denounce such claims, or sue Robbins and his publisher over such claims.</div>
</div>
<br>
That is puzzling, and that right there makes me wonder even more if this may be something that's done routinely, and the Pulitzer organization takes no stance on it. After all, any book that's nominated by someone could be considered a legitimate nominee-- it's just not a "nominated finalist." Not that that makes any less misleading to the public.<br><br><br><br>
BTW, my copy of DFANA does not claim anywhere on the book itself that it is a Pulitzer Prize nominee.

 

[puppyluv]

I am having a hard time finding any of these books in my library and I live in a metropolitan area with many libraries. They are in the system but always checked out. At least SOMEBODY is reading them.

 

[Tesseract]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>puppyluv</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I am having a hard time finding any of these books in my library and I live in a metropolitan area with many libraries. They are in the system but always checked out. At least SOMEBODY is reading them.</div>
</div>
<br>
You ought to be able to place a hold on it.