Not Really 1929, but . . .

TalkProject 1929

This group has been archived. Find out more.

Join LibraryThing to post.

Not Really 1929, but . . .

1rebeccanyc
Apr 11, 2009, 6:31 pm

I just read Only Yesterday by Frederick Lewis Allen, which is subtitled "an informal history of the 1920s." It was published in 1931, so it isn't a 1929 book, but I bring it up here because it sheds a lot of light on the period leading up to and including 1929.

I bought this book because it was referred to favorably in two other books I've read recently: The Great Crash 1929 and Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. An almost contemporaneous history of the US in the 1920s, it is fascinating for several reasons. First, despite it being almost "instant history," the author has a great deal of perspective on the decade, including the Teapot Dome scandal (first time I ever understood it), the revolution in "morals," Prohibition, selling swampland in Florida, and the Scopes trial, among other topics. Even more interestingly, it is clear that the roots of what we consider modern US culture today lie in the 20s, when the dramatic growth in automobile ownership and the development of radio began the switch to suburban living and mass national communication, fads, etc. On top of all this, the author has a lively style and a sense of humor.

2lauralkeet
Apr 12, 2009, 6:01 pm

Rebecca, thanks for creating this thread. Today on my blog I wrote about a party of early 20th-century women writers I've recently read, and imagined travelling back to 1929 to host a party for all of them. Imagine the conversation at this gathering: Edith Wharton, Willa Cather, Virginia Woolf, Edna Ferber, Teresa de la Parra, and Rachel Ferguson !!

3aluvalibri
Edited: Apr 15, 2009, 7:30 am

Quite an interesting post on your blog, Laura.
I love the first three, but you have prompted me to read Edna Ferber. Thanks!

4lauralkeet
Apr 15, 2009, 9:59 am

thank you Paola! I think you would enjoy Ferber's So Big.

5aluvalibri
Apr 15, 2009, 10:01 am

I must agree with you, Laura.
:-))