Interesting book, 18 Nov 2008
This was an interesting and thought provoking book suitable for either history students or just people with an interest in history.

It touches on various topics e.g. how cats were highly valued in Ancient Egypt but tended to be ill-treated in Middle Age and Early Modern Europe. This illustrates that attitudes in different times and places vary.

Also interesting was a discusion about how historians can use documents made for one purpose to obtain information about something different provided that they take care. I think that this book goes well with R J Evan's book " In Defence of History".

A Short History of History, 11 Jun 2005
Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy, but overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

Essential reading for anyone interested in History, 09 Jun 2002
This is an excellent, well written and thought provoking book about what it might mean to do History (and most other things). Students and readers of all ages will find it a valuable aid to reaching an understanding of the many different kinds of history there are and of how to go about choosing, reading and enjoying them.

A must for anyone who's even vaguely interested in history., 01 Feb 2001
This is a lively, provocative book. Arnold introduces, in a very personable and readable manner, some central questions about what history is, and can claim to be, and how it can be "done". He explores these questions through some entertaining and refreshing examples of historical source material.

Arnold strikes a balance that carries the reader through the complexities of the issues at hand without descending into patronising simplification, or bewildering jargon. He obviously has a passion for his subject, and this comes across very strongly in the book.

If you think history is all "kings and battles" and BBC2 programmes about archaeology, read this book- it might change your mind.

Interesting book, 18 Nov 2008
This was an interesting and thought provoking book suitable for either history students or just people with an interest in history.

It touches on various topics e.g. how cats were highly valued in Ancient Egypt but tended to be ill-treated in Middle Age and Early Modern Europe. This illustrates that attitudes in different times and places vary.

Also interesting was a discusion about how historians can use documents made for one purpose to obtain information about something different provided that they take care. I think that this book goes well with R J Evan's book " In Defence of History".

A Short History of History, 11 Jun 2005
Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy, but overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

Essential reading for anyone interested in History, 09 Jun 2002
This is an excellent, well written and thought provoking book about what it might mean to do History (and most other things). Students and readers of all ages will find it a valuable aid to reaching an understanding of the many different kinds of history there are and of how to go about choosing, reading and enjoying them.

A must for anyone who's even vaguely interested in history., 01 Feb 2001
This is a lively, provocative book. Arnold introduces, in a very personable and readable manner, some central questions about what history is, and can claim to be, and how it can be "done". He explores these questions through some entertaining and refreshing examples of historical source material.

Arnold strikes a balance that carries the reader through the complexities of the issues at hand without descending into patronising simplification, or bewildering jargon. He obviously has a passion for his subject, and this comes across very strongly in the book.

If you think history is all "kings and battles" and BBC2 programmes about archaeology, read this book- it might change your mind.

Makes a Brilliant Doorstop!!! , 01 Feb 2008
I would recommend this "existentialism Bible" to only two types of believer-

a)the serious philosophy student who has to read it because their tutor said so

b)prisoners of war or similar, as a method of torture.

This is tedium incarnate. What Jean-Paul does is spend 650 cursed pages rambling aimlessly and vaguely about the nature of existence only to draw such earth-shattering conclusions like "consciousness is consciousness of consciousness" and (too) many other frankly useless anecdotes.

For something bordering on relevance, I'd urge those still compelled to explore existentialism to instead read something by Camus, a superior writer who doesn't suffer verbal diarrhoea (J-P seems to repeat himself over and over without really adding anything to his highly suspect and largely fatuous non-arguments). Try "The Outsider" or "A Happy Death" by Camus- they bring the ideas of existentialism into something resembling clarity of perspective.

Anybody with a serious interest in their own existence will avoid this at all costs, unless they are a perverse sadist suffering from insomnia, or are planning to be stranded on a desert island, where this lump will doubtless serve as an aid to starting fires.

Speculative? System-building? Abstract? Gut-wrenching!, 25 Oct 2007
Sartre builds up a big, abstract, speculative system, apparently as a framework for his belief in human freedom, choice, and responsibility. What does this construction accomplish that simple assertions wouldn't of our freedom, our not being determined, our defining ourself via our yet-to-be-accomplished projects, our responsibility rooted in our unavoidable need to make choices? Perhaps both emphasis (you'll be less likely to forget you are free), elaboration (you'll learn more what being free as well as trying not to be implies), and examples (you'll learn more of the ways in which people try to avoid the weight of their freedom).

Even if the experts tell you they have you all figured out, you'll have decide whether to buy that or not. Even if you want to be all figured out and delivered from uncertainty, they (and you) may be wrong. If Sartre only argued for our individual freedoms, he wouldn't be so important. It is in his exploration of the ways in which we cringe from our freedom, of our "bad faith", that he connects and makes what seems a speculative, abstract system instead a powerful emotional truth.

If all this philosophy has captured you, Satre's novels and plays are no less powerful in presenting his themes: the novel "Nausea", the 3-volume "The Roads to Freedom", the play "No Exit", and more. Or if "Being and Nothingness" seems a bit much, try "Existential Psychoanalysis" which consists of two more grounded excerpts from "Being and Nothingness".

A long haul, but brilliant, 01 May 2005
Probably the best description of what this book is about comes from the subtitle, 'An essay on phenomenological ontology'- its a thorough analysis of the nature of existence from the point of view of human consciousness. Sartre begins with our most basic knowledge and works his way up to the complexities of human relationships, leaving nothing out. The first Part (of four) of the book centres around the two fundamental components of consciousness. Being is what we are aware of as existing; and Nothingness signifies any kind of negation, such as what we identify as missing, or even the giving of boundaries to an object. Consciousness is shown to be the agency responsible for introducing nothingness into the world: it is we who decide where the boundaries lie or who notice a component missing from the whole. Hence Sartre distinguishes two species of being: in-itself, i.e. a fixed, definable object in the normal understanding of the word; and for-itself, something with free will and which, therefore, is constantly moving beyond what it is was towards something new. Part II deals in-depth with the for-itself, Parts III & IV move on to relationships between for-itselves. One of the other reviews condemns Sartre for lack of argument. In fact, there is nothing to argue for, this book is a description, Sartre regards knowledge derived from closer scrutiny of the subject matter as superior to that elicited by chain of reason. Actually, the misunderstanding here is fundamental, and boils down to the conflict between the analytic and continental schools of philosophy.

This book is anti-religious, anti-scientific and anti-analytic. These three facts are the reason for a lot of general abuse that is hurled at the book, Sartre, and continental philosophy as a whole. However, with an open mind you will find that Sartre makes a very strong case for himself. The prose is difficult to follow, there is no disputing that, however, it is premature to dismiss the work as impenetrable, or even 'confused and obtuse'. I am an A-level student with no formal background in philosophy and I found no insurmountable problems. Continental philosophy is almost always like this, and the reason for it lies in the nature of the content. Sartre is attempting to describe something that precedes logic, and if you are willing to accept that such a notion is possible you will realise that it makes redundant the use of clear-cut definitions and logical language structure. Instead, Sartre must resort to using almost poetic descriptive methods (paradox and oxymoron abound), and the result of this is that the reader must take a more active approach to the understanding of the text. You have to 'think around' the words and sentences to find a meaning that is coherent. Sometimes this requires adapting your interpretation of earlier material. Having read to the end, I can assure you that there is a least one way of understanding what Sartre is trying to put across, although it is a time-intensive endeavour. I would recommend reading a short introductory book, some of Sartre's fictional works or Existentialism And Humanism, to get an idea of what you're in for; you're liable otherwise to regard yourself as having wasted a considerable amount of life-time and 13 quid on top of that. Also, Sartre kicks off with an immense amount of jargon, if you are without a basic grounding in philosophy, something like Penguin's Dictionary of Philosophy will prove useful.

It's not an easy read, and I can't agree with everything said, but for the most part it is incredibly perspicacious. It is written with an intensity that simultaneously demands and enthrals. Sartre's philosophy answers a lot of questions very well, and if you are both interested and determined enough to want a full account of his thought, this book is wholeheartedly recommended.

Satisfyingly Weighty, 03 Nov 2004
Alongside Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, de Beauvoir's Second Sex and Heidegger's Being and Time this book seems to have that requisite broadness of the beam to be considered foundational existentialist fodder. Which is curious, really, given the anti-foundationalist nature of existentialism. But on to content - this is definitely not the place, like the other tomes mentioned above, to start from for an understanding of existential phenomenology. For that I heartily recommend "Existentialism: A reconstruction" by David Cooper.
This, the "seminal" work of Sartre, is a thorough examination of the differences and relationships between thing-like beings and mind-like beings, to some degree aimed at overcoming the cartesian division of the subject from the world, and couched in Sartre's own attempt at phenomenological prose, which is at best paradoxical and at worst utterly confusing and easily misunderstandable. Statements like "man is what he is not and is not what he is" need pages of clarification to draw out the sense in which nothingness, or nihiliation is an integral process in the human project of self-identification. Much of what Sartre says is (badly) rehashed Heidegger, who I found much easier to understand, but Sartre does depart from Heidegger on several very important points, and also peppers his work with some quite specific real-world examples of what he means, a practise not favoured by the Master. It is also iluminating to read a work that many bandwagonesque 20th century "existentialists" in the parisian cafe culture probably never waded through, and now, at a time when Sartre is unpopular, is probably a better time to read this work, unhindered by hype and "movements". Some of the key elements of Sartre's thought presented here he later repudiated or at least doubted, especially during his romance with communism, such as the radical nature of human freedom to create itself, however, it is possible on returning to this work after reading elsewhere to come to the conclusion that Sartre himself misunderstood this work in his later years, and that he never really did underplay the significance of intersubjectivity after all.
I found the most illuminating passages in this weighty tome are those regarding "the look", "bad faith", "authenticity" etc. It is also facinating to see how all those quotations from Sartre that have been (mis)appropriated by others actually sit within this text in quite different contexts to how they have been used, and this goes for those colourful examples regarding "vertigo", pierre's "absence in the cafe", the "waiter playing at being a waiter" and so on.
This book is a very challenging read in terms of its style and its density, but extremely rewarding and surprising, especially coming to it after having read only second or third hand accounts of Sartre.
I rate this book despite its sheer awkwardness, with one single provisio: Sartre's attempt at examing sexual encounter is most amusing, if not profoundly silly!

The most underated classic of all time!, 15 Aug 1999
The review before mine says that there is a God shaped hole in existential thought. I disagree. Being an existentialist deals with man's acceptance of powers greater than his own. God is not the focus, and yes Sartre has a problem with the God idea, but God can exist if he exist's with the individual. There need not be a hole. Man is minute, but in his own life he is usually more important than anything. This does pose a problem for the western ideal of God, but it does not destroy the existence. The book will show you a God like hole only if one exists already, within you.

Interesting book, 18 Nov 2008
This was an interesting and thought provoking book suitable for either history students or just people with an interest in history.

It touches on various topics e.g. how cats were highly valued in Ancient Egypt but tended to be ill-treated in Middle Age and Early Modern Europe. This illustrates that attitudes in different times and places vary.

Also interesting was a discusion about how historians can use documents made for one purpose to obtain information about something different provided that they take care. I think that this book goes well with R J Evan's book " In Defence of History".

A Short History of History, 11 Jun 2005
Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy, but overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

Essential reading for anyone interested in History, 09 Jun 2002
This is an excellent, well written and thought provoking book about what it might mean to do History (and most other things). Students and readers of all ages will find it a valuable aid to reaching an understanding of the many different kinds of history there are and of how to go about choosing, reading and enjoying them.

A must for anyone who's even vaguely interested in history., 01 Feb 2001
This is a lively, provocative book. Arnold introduces, in a very personable and readable manner, some central questions about what history is, and can claim to be, and how it can be "done". He explores these questions through some entertaining and refreshing examples of historical source material.

Arnold strikes a balance that carries the reader through the complexities of the issues at hand without descending into patronising simplification, or bewildering jargon. He obviously has a passion for his subject, and this comes across very strongly in the book.

If you think history is all "kings and battles" and BBC2 programmes about archaeology, read this book- it might change your mind.

Makes a Brilliant Doorstop!!! , 01 Feb 2008
I would recommend this "existentialism Bible" to only two types of believer-

a)the serious philosophy student who has to read it because their tutor said so

b)prisoners of war or similar, as a method of torture.

This is tedium incarnate. What Jean-Paul does is spend 650 cursed pages rambling aimlessly and vaguely about the nature of existence only to draw such earth-shattering conclusions like "consciousness is consciousness of consciousness" and (too) many other frankly useless anecdotes.

For something bordering on relevance, I'd urge those still compelled to explore existentialism to instead read something by Camus, a superior writer who doesn't suffer verbal diarrhoea (J-P seems to repeat himself over and over without really adding anything to his highly suspect and largely fatuous non-arguments). Try "The Outsider" or "A Happy Death" by Camus- they bring the ideas of existentialism into something resembling clarity of perspective.

Anybody with a serious interest in their own existence will avoid this at all costs, unless they are a perverse sadist suffering from insomnia, or are planning to be stranded on a desert island, where this lump will doubtless serve as an aid to starting fires.

Speculative? System-building? Abstract? Gut-wrenching!, 25 Oct 2007
Sartre builds up a big, abstract, speculative system, apparently as a framework for his belief in human freedom, choice, and responsibility. What does this construction accomplish that simple assertions wouldn't of our freedom, our not being determined, our defining ourself via our yet-to-be-accomplished projects, our responsibility rooted in our unavoidable need to make choices? Perhaps both emphasis (you'll be less likely to forget you are free), elaboration (you'll learn more what being free as well as trying not to be implies), and examples (you'll learn more of the ways in which people try to avoid the weight of their freedom).

Even if the experts tell you they have you all figured out, you'll have decide whether to buy that or not. Even if you want to be all figured out and delivered from uncertainty, they (and you) may be wrong. If Sartre only argued for our individual freedoms, he wouldn't be so important. It is in his exploration of the ways in which we cringe from our freedom, of our "bad faith", that he connects and makes what seems a speculative, abstract system instead a powerful emotional truth.

If all this philosophy has captured you, Satre's novels and plays are no less powerful in presenting his themes: the novel "Nausea", the 3-volume "The Roads to Freedom", the play "No Exit", and more. Or if "Being and Nothingness" seems a bit much, try "Existential Psychoanalysis" which consists of two more grounded excerpts from "Being and Nothingness".

A long haul, but brilliant, 01 May 2005
Probably the best description of what this book is about comes from the subtitle, 'An essay on phenomenological ontology'- its a thorough analysis of the nature of existence from the point of view of human consciousness. Sartre begins with our most basic knowledge and works his way up to the complexities of human relationships, leaving nothing out. The first Part (of four) of the book centres around the two fundamental components of consciousness. Being is what we are aware of as existing; and Nothingness signifies any kind of negation, such as what we identify as missing, or even the giving of boundaries to an object. Consciousness is shown to be the agency responsible for introducing nothingness into the world: it is we who decide where the boundaries lie or who notice a component missing from the whole. Hence Sartre distinguishes two species of being: in-itself, i.e. a fixed, definable object in the normal understanding of the word; and for-itself, something with free will and which, therefore, is constantly moving beyond what it is was towards something new. Part II deals in-depth with the for-itself, Parts III & IV move on to relationships between for-itselves. One of the other reviews condemns Sartre for lack of argument. In fact, there is nothing to argue for, this book is a description, Sartre regards knowledge derived from closer scrutiny of the subject matter as superior to that elicited by chain of reason. Actually, the misunderstanding here is fundamental, and boils down to the conflict between the analytic and continental schools of philosophy.

This book is anti-religious, anti-scientific and anti-analytic. These three facts are the reason for a lot of general abuse that is hurled at the book, Sartre, and continental philosophy as a whole. However, with an open mind you will find that Sartre makes a very strong case for himself. The prose is difficult to follow, there is no disputing that, however, it is premature to dismiss the work as impenetrable, or even 'confused and obtuse'. I am an A-level student with no formal background in philosophy and I found no insurmountable problems. Continental philosophy is almost always like this, and the reason for it lies in the nature of the content. Sartre is attempting to describe something that precedes logic, and if you are willing to accept that such a notion is possible you will realise that it makes redundant the use of clear-cut definitions and logical language structure. Instead, Sartre must resort to using almost poetic descriptive methods (paradox and oxymoron abound), and the result of this is that the reader must take a more active approach to the understanding of the text. You have to 'think around' the words and sentences to find a meaning that is coherent. Sometimes this requires adapting your interpretation of earlier material. Having read to the end, I can assure you that there is a least one way of understanding what Sartre is trying to put across, although it is a time-intensive endeavour. I would recommend reading a short introductory book, some of Sartre's fictional works or Existentialism And Humanism, to get an idea of what you're in for; you're liable otherwise to regard yourself as having wasted a considerable amount of life-time and 13 quid on top of that. Also, Sartre kicks off with an immense amount of jargon, if you are without a basic grounding in philosophy, something like Penguin's Dictionary of Philosophy will prove useful.

It's not an easy read, and I can't agree with everything said, but for the most part it is incredibly perspicacious. It is written with an intensity that simultaneously demands and enthrals. Sartre's philosophy answers a lot of questions very well, and if you are both interested and determined enough to want a full account of his thought, this book is wholeheartedly recommended.

Satisfyingly Weighty, 03 Nov 2004
Alongside Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, de Beauvoir's Second Sex and Heidegger's Being and Time this book seems to have that requisite broadness of the beam to be considered foundational existentialist fodder. Which is curious, really, given the anti-foundationalist nature of existentialism. But on to content - this is definitely not the place, like the other tomes mentioned above, to start from for an understanding of existential phenomenology. For that I heartily recommend "Existentialism: A reconstruction" by David Cooper.
This, the "seminal" work of Sartre, is a thorough examination of the differences and relationships between thing-like beings and mind-like beings, to some degree aimed at overcoming the cartesian division of the subject from the world, and couched in Sartre's own attempt at phenomenological prose, which is at best paradoxical and at worst utterly confusing and easily misunderstandable. Statements like "man is what he is not and is not what he is" need pages of clarification to draw out the sense in which nothingness, or nihiliation is an integral process in the human project of self-identification. Much of what Sartre says is (badly) rehashed Heidegger, who I found much easier to understand, but Sartre does depart from Heidegger on several very important points, and also peppers his work with some quite specific real-world examples of what he means, a practise not favoured by the Master. It is also iluminating to read a work that many bandwagonesque 20th century "existentialists" in the parisian cafe culture probably never waded through, and now, at a time when Sartre is unpopular, is probably a better time to read this work, unhindered by hype and "movements". Some of the key elements of Sartre's thought presented here he later repudiated or at least doubted, especially during his romance with communism, such as the radical nature of human freedom to create itself, however, it is possible on returning to this work after reading elsewhere to come to the conclusion that Sartre himself misunderstood this work in his later years, and that he never really did underplay the significance of intersubjectivity after all.
I found the most illuminating passages in this weighty tome are those regarding "the look", "bad faith", "authenticity" etc. It is also facinating to see how all those quotations from Sartre that have been (mis)appropriated by others actually sit within this text in quite different contexts to how they have been used, and this goes for those colourful examples regarding "vertigo", pierre's "absence in the cafe", the "waiter playing at being a waiter" and so on.
This book is a very challenging read in terms of its style and its density, but extremely rewarding and surprising, especially coming to it after having read only second or third hand accounts of Sartre.
I rate this book despite its sheer awkwardness, with one single provisio: Sartre's attempt at examing sexual encounter is most amusing, if not profoundly silly!

The most underated classic of all time!, 15 Aug 1999
The review before mine says that there is a God shaped hole in existential thought. I disagree. Being an existentialist deals with man's acceptance of powers greater than his own. God is not the focus, and yes Sartre has a problem with the God idea, but God can exist if he exist's with the individual. There need not be a hole. Man is minute, but in his own life he is usually more important than anything. This does pose a problem for the western ideal of God, but it does not destroy the existence. The book will show you a God like hole only if one exists already, within you.

A valiant, but only partially successful effort, 24 Nov 1998
The New Oxford History of Art represents the first massive effort to rethink this field in detail since Nikolaus Pevsner launched the Pelican History fifty years ago. The volumes are well printed, advantageously priced, and generally refreshing in their point of view. Preziosi's volume is sui generis in that instead of dealing with a period or theme, it is a second order study--of the study of art history. It combines an anthology with interspersed commentary. Unfortunately, the Preziosi commentary, demonstrating the author's effort to find a new approach, is marred by opaque language and a sketchy presentation of ideas. For example, he says that one of his approaches will be based on the principle of the anamorphic image. Although he reproduces one by Holbein, he does not adequately explain it. Still, for those with an interest in the subject this volume is worth struggling with.

Interesting book, 18 Nov 2008
This was an interesting and thought provoking book suitable for either history students or just people with an interest in history.

It touches on various topics e.g. how cats were highly valued in Ancient Egypt but tended to be ill-treated in Middle Age and Early Modern Europe. This illustrates that attitudes in different times and places vary.

Also interesting was a discusion about how historians can use documents made for one purpose to obtain information about something different provided that they take care. I think that this book goes well with R J Evan's book " In Defence of History".

A Short History of History, 11 Jun 2005
Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy, but overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

Essential reading for anyone interested in History, 09 Jun 2002
This is an excellent, well written and thought provoking book about what it might mean to do History (and most other things). Students and readers of all ages will find it a valuable aid to reaching an understanding of the many different kinds of history there are and of how to go about choosing, reading and enjoying them.

A must for anyone who's even vaguely interested in history., 01 Feb 2001
This is a lively, provocative book. Arnold introduces, in a very personable and readable manner, some central questions about what history is, and can claim to be, and how it can be "done". He explores these questions through some entertaining and refreshing examples of historical source material.

Arnold strikes a balance that carries the reader through the complexities of the issues at hand without descending into patronising simplification, or bewildering jargon. He obviously has a passion for his subject, and this comes across very strongly in the book.

If you think history is all "kings and battles" and BBC2 programmes about archaeology, read this book- it might change your mind.

Makes a Brilliant Doorstop!!! , 01 Feb 2008
I would recommend this "existentialism Bible" to only two types of believer-

a)the serious philosophy student who has to read it because their tutor said so

b)prisoners of war or similar, as a method of torture.

This is tedium incarnate. What Jean-Paul does is spend 650 cursed pages rambling aimlessly and vaguely about the nature of existence only to draw such earth-shattering conclusions like "consciousness is consciousness of consciousness" and (too) many other frankly useless anecdotes.

For something bordering on relevance, I'd urge those still compelled to explore existentialism to instead read something by Camus, a superior writer who doesn't suffer verbal diarrhoea (J-P seems to repeat himself over and over without really adding anything to his highly suspect and largely fatuous non-arguments). Try "The Outsider" or "A Happy Death" by Camus- they bring the ideas of existentialism into something resembling clarity of perspective.

Anybody with a serious interest in their own existence will avoid this at all costs, unless they are a perverse sadist suffering from insomnia, or are planning to be stranded on a desert island, where this lump will doubtless serve as an aid to starting fires.

Speculative? System-building? Abstract? Gut-wrenching!, 25 Oct 2007
Sartre builds up a big, abstract, speculative system, apparently as a framework for his belief in human freedom, choice, and responsibility. What does this construction accomplish that simple assertions wouldn't of our freedom, our not being determined, our defining ourself via our yet-to-be-accomplished projects, our responsibility rooted in our unavoidable need to make choices? Perhaps both emphasis (you'll be less likely to forget you are free), elaboration (you'll learn more what being free as well as trying not to be implies), and examples (you'll learn more of the ways in which people try to avoid the weight of their freedom).

Even if the experts tell you they have you all figured out, you'll have decide whether to buy that or not. Even if you want to be all figured out and delivered from uncertainty, they (and you) may be wrong. If Sartre only argued for our individual freedoms, he wouldn't be so important. It is in his exploration of the ways in which we cringe from our freedom, of our "bad faith", that he connects and makes what seems a speculative, abstract system instead a powerful emotional truth.

If all this philosophy has captured you, Satre's novels and plays are no less powerful in presenting his themes: the novel "Nausea", the 3-volume "The Roads to Freedom", the play "No Exit", and more. Or if "Being and Nothingness" seems a bit much, try "Existential Psychoanalysis" which consists of two more grounded excerpts from "Being and Nothingness".

A long haul, but brilliant, 01 May 2005
Probably the best description of what this book is about comes from the subtitle, 'An essay on phenomenological ontology'- its a thorough analysis of the nature of existence from the point of view of human consciousness. Sartre begins with our most basic knowledge and works his way up to the complexities of human relationships, leaving nothing out. The first Part (of four) of the book centres around the two fundamental components of consciousness. Being is what we are aware of as existing; and Nothingness signifies any kind of negation, such as what we identify as missing, or even the giving of boundaries to an object. Consciousness is shown to be the agency responsible for introducing nothingness into the world: it is we who decide where the boundaries lie or who notice a component missing from the whole. Hence Sartre distinguishes two species of being: in-itself, i.e. a fixed, definable object in the normal understanding of the word; and for-itself, something with free will and which, therefore, is constantly moving beyond what it is was towards something new. Part II deals in-depth with the for-itself, Parts III & IV move on to relationships between for-itselves. One of the other reviews condemns Sartre for lack of argument. In fact, there is nothing to argue for, this book is a description, Sartre regards knowledge derived from closer scrutiny of the subject matter as superior to that elicited by chain of reason. Actually, the misunderstanding here is fundamental, and boils down to the conflict between the analytic and continental schools of philosophy.

This book is anti-religious, anti-scientific and anti-analytic. These three facts are the reason for a lot of general abuse that is hurled at the book, Sartre, and continental philosophy as a whole. However, with an open mind you will find that Sartre makes a very strong case for himself. The prose is difficult to follow, there is no disputing that, however, it is premature to dismiss the work as impenetrable, or even 'confused and obtuse'. I am an A-level student with no formal background in philosophy and I found no insurmountable problems. Continental philosophy is almost always like this, and the reason for it lies in the nature of the content. Sartre is attempting to describe something that precedes logic, and if you are willing to accept that such a notion is possible you will realise that it makes redundant the use of clear-cut definitions and logical language structure. Instead, Sartre must resort to using almost poetic descriptive methods (paradox and oxymoron abound), and the result of this is that the reader must take a more active approach to the understanding of the text. You have to 'think around' the words and sentences to find a meaning that is coherent. Sometimes this requires adapting your interpretation of earlier material. Having read to the end, I can assure you that there is a least one way of understanding what Sartre is trying to put across, although it is a time-intensive endeavour. I would recommend reading a short introductory book, some of Sartre's fictional works or Existentialism And Humanism, to get an idea of what you're in for; you're liable otherwise to regard yourself as having wasted a considerable amount of life-time and 13 quid on top of that. Also, Sartre kicks off with an immense amount of jargon, if you are without a basic grounding in philosophy, something like Penguin's Dictionary of Philosophy will prove useful.

It's not an easy read, and I can't agree with everything said, but for the most part it is incredibly perspicacious. It is written with an intensity that simultaneously demands and enthrals. Sartre's philosophy answers a lot of questions very well, and if you are both interested and determined enough to want a full account of his thought, this book is wholeheartedly recommended.

Satisfyingly Weighty, 03 Nov 2004
Alongside Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, de Beauvoir's Second Sex and Heidegger's Being and Time this book seems to have that requisite broadness of the beam to be considered foundational existentialist fodder. Which is curious, really, given the anti-foundationalist nature of existentialism. But on to content - this is definitely not the place, like the other tomes mentioned above, to start from for an understanding of existential phenomenology. For that I heartily recommend "Existentialism: A reconstruction" by David Cooper.
This, the "seminal" work of Sartre, is a thorough examination of the differences and relationships between thing-like beings and mind-like beings, to some degree aimed at overcoming the cartesian division of the subject from the world, and couched in Sartre's own attempt at phenomenological prose, which is at best paradoxical and at worst utterly confusing and easily misunderstandable. Statements like "man is what he is not and is not what he is" need pages of clarification to draw out the sense in which nothingness, or nihiliation is an integral process in the human project of self-identification. Much of what Sartre says is (badly) rehashed Heidegger, who I found much easier to understand, but Sartre does depart from Heidegger on several very important points, and also peppers his work with some quite specific real-world examples of what he means, a practise not favoured by the Master. It is also iluminating to read a work that many bandwagonesque 20th century "existentialists" in the parisian cafe culture probably never waded through, and now, at a time when Sartre is unpopular, is probably a better time to read this work, unhindered by hype and "movements". Some of the key elements of Sartre's thought presented here he later repudiated or at least doubted, especially during his romance with communism, such as the radical nature of human freedom to create itself, however, it is possible on returning to this work after reading elsewhere to come to the conclusion that Sartre himself misunderstood this work in his later years, and that he never really did underplay the significance of intersubjectivity after all.
I found the most illuminating passages in this weighty tome are those regarding "the look", "bad faith", "authenticity" etc. It is also facinating to see how all those quotations from Sartre that have been (mis)appropriated by others actually sit within this text in quite different contexts to how they have been used, and this goes for those colourful examples regarding "vertigo", pierre's "absence in the cafe", the "waiter playing at being a waiter" and so on.
This book is a very challenging read in terms of its style and its density, but extremely rewarding and surprising, especially coming to it after having read only second or third hand accounts of Sartre.
I rate this book despite its sheer awkwardness, with one single provisio: Sartre's attempt at examing sexual encounter is most amusing, if not profoundly silly!

The most underated classic of all time!, 15 Aug 1999
The review before mine says that there is a God shaped hole in existential thought. I disagree. Being an existentialist deals with man's acceptance of powers greater than his own. God is not the focus, and yes Sartre has a problem with the God idea, but God can exist if he exist's with the individual. There need not be a hole. Man is minute, but in his own life he is usually more important than anything. This does pose a problem for the western ideal of God, but it does not destroy the existence. The book will show you a God like hole only if one exists already, within you.

A valiant, but only partially successful effort, 24 Nov 1998
The New Oxford History of Art represents the first massive effort to rethink this field in detail since Nikolaus Pevsner launched the Pelican History fifty years ago. The volumes are well printed, advantageously priced, and generally refreshing in their point of view. Preziosi's volume is sui generis in that instead of dealing with a period or theme, it is a second order study--of the study of art history. It combines an anthology with interspersed commentary. Unfortunately, the Preziosi commentary, demonstrating the author's effort to find a new approach, is marred by opaque language and a sketchy presentation of ideas. For example, he says that one of his approaches will be based on the principle of the anamorphic image. Although he reproduces one by Holbein, he does not adequately explain it. Still, for those with an interest in the subject this volume is worth struggling with.

Once it was thought-provoking, now dangerously out-of-date, 07 Jun 2007
I am interested by this book, because it has had its impact on the way history is taught. But now - sixteen years after it was first published - it is a pinnacle of everything wrong about historical theory in the modern world. There as some things which are just plain patronising about it, like the idea that historical literature is different from the past: 'This might strike you as odd for you may have missed this distinction before..' on page 6 (Oh really? Like I hadn't noticed the difference between a book about the blitz and having bombs dropped on me.) But the important issue is the post-modernist bias of text-obsession. It criticises history on the grounds that to 'do' history you must read texts, which are just discourses. This is fundamentally wrong. Yes, you must read texts, but you must also look at archaeological remains, to feel sensations, to be alive. To be alive now is the best evidence we have as to what it was like to be alive in the past. One suspects, reading his book, that Jenkins has never really been alive. Rather he reduces all interaction with the past to a jaw-dropping receptiveness to textual information. For most people the questions posed by the past, and the answers to those questions, are not matters of text but correlation (or contrast) between past evidence and present reality. As a result this book may well be held up (soon) as a key example of how attempts to use post-modernist ideas to control history are bound to fail, even if they cause us to look again at our sources. If Jenkins' theories held true, every word in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography would be dodgy, open to doubt. If that is the case it is only so because one could, in theory, object to every source's interpretation. But one cannot - there is no doubting that princess Diana died in 1997. Life is too short and history is too interesting - and history is too great and life too interesting - to pay heed to the arguments advanced in this book

Fatuous, overly-critical and irritatingly smug, 10 Oct 2003
Having read this book as part of a series of books for a Uni course, compared to the likes of Marc Bloch, Karl Marx and others, I couldn't help wondering why, if he knows so much about the problems with historical writing, Jenkins has never bothered to write a history book, rather than a historical theory book. Others have criticised the traditional methodology of historians but put their own ideas into practice to demonstrate what they mean. Jenkins seems to have neither the imagination nor the ability to write history, so instead he has turned his attention to criticising it. Having said this, he has some interesting ideas, but they must be compared to the writing of Richard Evans (In Defence of History), Bloch and as many others as possible, which will rather show up the flaws in his reasoning.

A book that will change the way you look at everything, 19 Apr 2002
Rethinking History is an essential guide to the debates concerning the world we are living in, relevant not just for historians but for everyone. It raises interesting questions concerning our education system, politics and our perception of "bias" and "truth" when it comes to the past and our attitudes towards it. In some places the book leaves a great deal to be desired in its grammar and sentence structure, but get beyond the bad use of the English language, and this book does in fact have some very important things to say. Believe me, it will change the way you look at everything!

A fresh look at Historiography, 23 Apr 2001
I picked up this book having read EH Carr, and with an open mind, and was not disappointed. Jenkins really hits the nail on the head with this insightful book that prompts one to take a fresh look at some of today's most controversial historical problems. It is a very engaging, readable book that has been so useful in my personal study of history, particularly in the attention paid to the relevance and irrelevance of historical sources and facts. I thoroughly recommend this to anyone studying History!

Interesting book, 18 Nov 2008
This was an interesting and thought provoking book suitable for either history students or just people with an interest in history.

It touches on various topics e.g. how cats were highly valued in Ancient Egypt but tended to be ill-treated in Middle Age and Early Modern Europe. This illustrates that attitudes in different times and places vary.

Also interesting was a discusion about how historians can use documents made for one purpose to obtain information about something different provided that they take care. I think that this book goes well with R J Evan's book " In Defence of History".

A Short History of History, 11 Jun 2005
Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy, but overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

Essential reading for anyone interested in History, 09 Jun 2002
This is an excellent, well written and thought provoking book about what it might mean to do History (and most other things). Students and readers of all ages will find it a valuable aid to reaching an understanding of the many different kinds of history there are and of how to go about choosing, reading and enjoying them.

A must for anyone who's even vaguely interested in history., 01 Feb 2001
This is a lively, provocative book. Arnold introduces, in a very personable and readable manner, some central questions about what history is, and can claim to be, and how it can be "done". He explores these questions through some entertaining and refreshing examples of historical source material.

Arnold strikes a balance that carries the reader through the complexities of the issues at hand without descending into patronising simplification, or bewildering jargon. He obviously has a passion for his subject, and this comes across very strongly in the book.

If you think history is all "kings and battles" and BBC2 programmes about archaeology, read this book- it might change your mind.

Makes a Brilliant Doorstop!!! , 01 Feb 2008
I would recommend this "existentialism Bible" to only two types of believer-

a)the serious philosophy student who has to read it because their tutor said so

b)prisoners of war or similar, as a method of torture.

This is tedium incarnate. What Jean-Paul does is spend 650 cursed pages rambling aimlessly and vaguely about the nature of existence only to draw such earth-shattering conclusions like "consciousness is consciousness of consciousness" and (too) many other frankly useless anecdotes.

For something bordering on relevance, I'd urge those still compelled to explore existentialism to instead read something by Camus, a superior writer who doesn't suffer verbal diarrhoea (J-P seems to repeat himself over and over without really adding anything to his highly suspect and largely fatuous non-arguments). Try "The Outsider" or "A Happy Death" by Camus- they bring the ideas of existentialism into something resembling clarity of perspective.

Anybody with a serious interest in their own existence will avoid this at all costs, unless they are a perverse sadist suffering from insomnia, or are planning to be stranded on a desert island, where this lump will doubtless serve as an aid to starting fires.

Speculative? System-building? Abstract? Gut-wrenching!, 25 Oct 2007
Sartre builds up a big, abstract, speculative system, apparently as a framework for his belief in human freedom, choice, and responsibility. What does this construction accomplish that simple assertions wouldn't of our freedom, our not being determined, our defining ourself via our yet-to-be-accomplished projects, our responsibility rooted in our unavoidable need to make choices? Perhaps both emphasis (you'll be less likely to forget you are free), elaboration (you'll learn more what being free as well as trying not to be implies), and examples (you'll learn more of the ways in which people try to avoid the weight of their freedom).

Even if the experts tell you they have you all figured out, you'll have decide whether to buy that or not. Even if you want to be all figured out and delivered from uncertainty, they (and you) may be wrong. If Sartre only argued for our individual freedoms, he wouldn't be so important. It is in his exploration of the ways in which we cringe from our freedom, of our "bad faith", that he connects and makes what seems a speculative, abstract system instead a powerful emotional truth.

If all this philosophy has captured you, Satre's novels and plays are no less powerful in presenting his themes: the novel "Nausea", the 3-volume "The Roads to Freedom", the play "No Exit", and more. Or if "Being and Nothingness" seems a bit much, try "Existential Psychoanalysis" which consists of two more grounded excerpts from "Being and Nothingness".

A long haul, but brilliant, 01 May 2005
Probably the best description of what this book is about comes from the subtitle, 'An essay on phenomenological ontology'- its a thorough analysis of the nature of existence from the point of view of human consciousness. Sartre begins with our most basic knowledge and works his way up to the complexities of human relationships, leaving nothing out. The first Part (of four) of the book centres around the two fundamental components of consciousness. Being is what we are aware of as existing; and Nothingness signifies any kind of negation, such as what we identify as missing, or even the giving of boundaries to an object. Consciousness is shown to be the agency responsible for introducing nothingness into the world: it is we who decide where the boundaries lie or who notice a component missing from the whole. Hence Sartre distinguishes two species of being: in-itself, i.e. a fixed, definable object in the normal understanding of the word; and for-itself, something with free will and which, therefore, is constantly moving beyond what it is was towards something new. Part II deals in-depth with the for-itself, Parts III & IV move on to relationships between for-itselves. One of the other reviews condemns Sartre for lack of argument. In fact, there is nothing to argue for, this book is a description, Sartre regards knowledge derived from closer scrutiny of the subject matter as superior to that elicited by chain of reason. Actually, the misunderstanding here is fundamental, and boils down to the conflict between the analytic and continental schools of philosophy.

This book is anti-religious, anti-scientific and anti-analytic. These three facts are the reason for a lot of general abuse that is hurled at the book, Sartre, and continental philosophy as a whole. However, with an open mind you will find that Sartre makes a very strong case for himself. The prose is difficult to follow, there is no disputing that, however, it is premature to dismiss the work as impenetrable, or even 'confused and obtuse'. I am an A-level student with no formal background in philosophy and I found no insurmountable problems. Continental philosophy is almost always like this, and the reason for it lies in the nature of the content. Sartre is attempting to describe something that precedes logic, and if you are willing to accept that such a notion is possible you will realise that it makes redundant the use of clear-cut definitions and logical language structure. Instead, Sartre must resort to using almost poetic descriptive methods (paradox and oxymoron abound), and the result of this is that the reader must take a more active approach to the understanding of the text. You have to 'think around' the words and sentences to find a meaning that is coherent. Sometimes this requires adapting your interpretation of earlier material. Having read to the end, I can assure you that there is a least one way of understanding what Sartre is trying to put across, although it is a time-intensive endeavour. I would recommend reading a short introductory book, some of Sartre's fictional works or Existentialism And Humanism, to get an idea of what you're in for; you're liable otherwise to regard yourself as having wasted a considerable amount of life-time and 13 quid on top of that. Also, Sartre kicks off with an immense amount of jargon, if you are without a basic grounding in philosophy, something like Penguin's Dictionary of Philosophy will prove useful.

It's not an easy read, and I can't agree with everything said, but for the most part it is incredibly perspicacious. It is written with an intensity that simultaneously demands and enthrals. Sartre's philosophy answers a lot of questions very well, and if you are both interested and determined enough to want a full account of his thought, this book is wholeheartedly recommended.

Satisfyingly Weighty, 03 Nov 2004
Alongside Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, de Beauvoir's Second Sex and Heidegger's Being and Time this book seems to have that requisite broadness of the beam to be considered foundational existentialist fodder. Which is curious, really, given the anti-foundationalist nature of existentialism. But on to content - this is definitely not the place, like the other tomes mentioned above, to start from for an understanding of existential phenomenology. For that I heartily recommend "Existentialism: A reconstruction" by David Cooper.
This, the "seminal" work of Sartre, is a thorough examination of the differences and relationships between thing-like beings and mind-like beings, to some degree aimed at overcoming the cartesian division of the subject from the world, and couched in Sartre's own attempt at phenomenological prose, which is at best paradoxical and at worst utterly confusing and easily misunderstandable. Statements like "man is what he is not and is not what he is" need pages of clarification to draw out the sense in which nothingness, or nihiliation is an integral process in the human project of self-identification. Much of what Sartre says is (badly) rehashed Heidegger, who I found much easier to understand, but Sartre does depart from Heidegger on several very important points, and also peppers his work with some quite specific real-world examples of what he means, a practise not favoured by the Master. It is also iluminating to read a work that many bandwagonesque 20th century "existentialists" in the parisian cafe culture probably never waded through, and now, at a time when Sartre is unpopular, is probably a better time to read this work, unhindered by hype and "movements". Some of the key elements of Sartre's thought presented here he later repudiated or at least doubted, especially during his romance with communism, such as the radical nature of human freedom to create itself, however, it is possible on returning to this work after reading elsewhere to come to the conclusion that Sartre himself misunderstood this work in his later years, and that he never really did underplay the significance of intersubjectivity after all.
I found the most illuminating passages in this weighty tome are those regarding "the look", "bad faith", "authenticity" etc. It is also facinating to see how all those quotations from Sartre that have been (mis)appropriated by others actually sit within this text in quite different contexts to how they have been used, and this goes for those colourful examples regarding "vertigo", pierre's "absence in the cafe", the "waiter playing at being a waiter" and so on.
This book is a very challenging read in terms of its style and its density, but extremely rewarding and surprising, especially coming to it after having read only second or third hand accounts of Sartre.
I rate this book despite its sheer awkwardness, with one single provisio: Sartre's attempt at examing sexual encounter is most amusing, if not profoundly silly!

The most underated classic of all time!, 15 Aug 1999
The review before mine says that there is a God shaped hole in existential thought. I disagree. Being an existentialist deals with man's acceptance of powers greater than his own. God is not the focus, and yes Sartre has a problem with the God idea, but God can exist if he exist's with the individual. There need not be a hole. Man is minute, but in his own life he is usually more important than anything. This does pose a problem for the western ideal of God, but it does not destroy the existence. The book will show you a God like hole only if one exists already, within you.

A valiant, but only partially successful effort, 24 Nov 1998
The New Oxford History of Art represents the first massive effort to rethink this field in detail since Nikolaus Pevsner launched the Pelican History fifty years ago. The volumes are well printed, advantageously priced, and generally refreshing in their point of view. Preziosi's volume is sui generis in that instead of dealing with a period or theme, it is a second order study--of the study of art history. It combines an anthology with interspersed commentary. Unfortunately, the Preziosi commentary, demonstrating the author's effort to find a new approach, is marred by opaque language and a sketchy presentation of ideas. For example, he says that one of his approaches will be based on the principle of the anamorphic image. Although he reproduces one by Holbein, he does not adequately explain it. Still, for those with an interest in the subject this volume is worth struggling with.

Once it was thought-provoking, now dangerously out-of-date, 07 Jun 2007
I am interested by this book, because it has had its impact on the way history is taught. But now - sixteen years after it was first published - it is a pinnacle of everything wrong about historical theory in the modern world. There as some things which are just plain patronising about it, like the idea that historical literature is different from the past: 'This might strike you as odd for you may have missed this distinction before..' on page 6 (Oh really? Like I hadn't noticed the difference between a book about the blitz and having bombs dropped on me.) But the important issue is the post-modernist bias of text-obsession. It criticises history on the grounds that to 'do' history you must read texts, which are just discourses. This is fundamentally wrong. Yes, you must read texts, but you must also look at archaeological remains, to feel sensations, to be alive. To be alive now is the best evidence we have as to what it was like to be alive in the past. One suspects, reading his book, that Jenkins has never really been alive. Rather he reduces all interaction with the past to a jaw-dropping receptiveness to textual information. For most people the questions posed by the past, and the answers to those questions, are not matters of text but correlation (or contrast) between past evidence and present reality. As a result this book may well be held up (soon) as a key example of how attempts to use post-modernist ideas to control history are bound to fail, even if they cause us to look again at our sources. If Jenkins' theories held true, every word in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography would be dodgy, open to doubt. If that is the case it is only so because one could, in theory, object to every source's interpretation. But one cannot - there is no doubting that princess Diana died in 1997. Life is too short and history is too interesting - and history is too great and life too interesting - to pay heed to the arguments advanced in this book

Fatuous, overly-critical and irritatingly smug, 10 Oct 2003
Having read this book as part of a series of books for a Uni course, compared to the likes of Marc Bloch, Karl Marx and others, I couldn't help wondering why, if he knows so much about the problems with historical writing, Jenkins has never bothered to write a history book, rather than a historical theory book. Others have criticised the traditional methodology of historians but put their own ideas into practice to demonstrate what they mean. Jenkins seems to have neither the imagination nor the ability to write history, so instead he has turned his attention to criticising it. Having said this, he has some interesting ideas, but they must be compared to the writing of Richard Evans (In Defence of History), Bloch and as many others as possible, which will rather show up the flaws in his reasoning.

A book that will change the way you look at everything, 19 Apr 2002
Rethinking History is an essential guide to the debates concerning the world we are living in, relevant not just for historians but for everyone. It raises interesting questions concerning our education system, politics and our perception of "bias" and "truth" when it comes to the past and our attitudes towards it. In some places the book leaves a great deal to be desired in its grammar and sentence structure, but get beyond the bad use of the English language, and this book does in fact have some very important things to say. Believe me, it will change the way you look at everything!

A fresh look at Historiography, 23 Apr 2001
I picked up this book having read EH Carr, and with an open mind, and was not disappointed. Jenkins really hits the nail on the head with this insightful book that prompts one to take a fresh look at some of today's most controversial historical problems. It is a very engaging, readable book that has been so useful in my personal study of history, particularly in the attention paid to the relevance and irrelevance of historical sources and facts. I thoroughly recommend this to anyone studying History!

Excellent, 21 Apr 2008
Good tips and very easy to read, has helped me review my essay writing before I go to university. I enjoyed reading this book and I am keeping it for future reference.

Interesting book, 18 Nov 2008
This was an interesting and thought provoking book suitable for either history students or just people with an interest in history.

It touches on various topics e.g. how cats were highly valued in Ancient Egypt but tended to be ill-treated in Middle Age and Early Modern Europe. This illustrates that attitudes in different times and places vary.

Also interesting was a discusion about how historians can use documents made for one purpose to obtain information about something different provided that they take care. I think that this book goes well with R J Evan's book " In Defence of History".

A Short History of History, 11 Jun 2005
Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy, but overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

Essential reading for anyone interested in History, 09 Jun 2002
This is an excellent, well written and thought provoking book about what it might mean to do History (and most other things). Students and readers of all ages will find it a valuable aid to reaching an understanding of the many different kinds of history there are and of how to go about choosing, reading and enjoying them.

A must for anyone who's even vaguely interested in history., 01 Feb 2001
This is a lively, provocative book. Arnold introduces, in a very personable and readable manner, some central questions about what history is, and can claim to be, and how it can be "done". He explores these questions through some entertaining and refreshing examples of historical source material.

Arnold strikes a balance that carries the reader through the complexities of the issues at hand without descending into patronising simplification, or bewildering jargon. He obviously has a passion for his subject, and this comes across very strongly in the book.

If you think history is all "kings and battles" and BBC2 programmes about archaeology, read this book- it might change your mind.

Makes a Brilliant Doorstop!!! , 01 Feb 2008
I would recommend this "existentialism Bible" to only two types of believer-

a)the serious philosophy student who has to read it because their tutor said so

b)prisoners of war or similar, as a method of torture.

This is tedium incarnate. What Jean-Paul does is spend 650 cursed pages rambling aimlessly and vaguely about the nature of existence only to draw such earth-shattering conclusions like "consciousness is consciousness of consciousness" and (too) many other frankly useless anecdotes.

For something bordering on relevance, I'd urge those still compelled to explore existentialism to instead read something by Camus, a superior writer who doesn't suffer verbal diarrhoea (J-P seems to repeat himself over and over without really adding anything to his highly suspect and largely fatuous non-arguments). Try "The Outsider" or "A Happy Death" by Camus- they bring the ideas of existentialism into something resembling clarity of perspective.

Anybody with a serious interest in their own existence will avoid this at all costs, unless they are a perverse sadist suffering from insomnia, or are planning to be stranded on a desert island, where this lump will doubtless serve as an aid to starting fires.

Speculative? System-building? Abstract? Gut-wrenching!, 25 Oct 2007
Sartre builds up a big, abstract, speculative system, apparently as a framework for his belief in human freedom, choice, and responsibility. What does this construction accomplish that simple assertions wouldn't of our freedom, our not being determined, our defining ourself via our yet-to-be-accomplished projects, our responsibility rooted in our unavoidable need to make choices? Perhaps both emphasis (you'll be less likely to forget you are free), elaboration (you'll learn more what being free as well as trying not to be implies), and examples (you'll learn more of the ways in which people try to avoid the weight of their freedom).

Even if the experts tell you they have you all figured out, you'll have decide whether to buy that or not. Even if you want to be all figured out and delivered from uncertainty, they (and you) may be wrong. If Sartre only argued for our individual freedoms, he wouldn't be so important. It is in his exploration of the ways in which we cringe from our freedom, of our "bad faith", that he connects and makes what seems a speculative, abstract system instead a powerful emotional truth.

If all this philosophy has captured you, Satre's novels and plays are no less powerful in presenting his themes: the novel "Nausea", the 3-volume "The Roads to Freedom", the play "No Exit", and more. Or if "Being and Nothingness" seems a bit much, try "Existential Psychoanalysis" which consists of two more grounded excerpts from "Being and Nothingness".

A long haul, but brilliant, 01 May 2005
Probably the best description of what this book is about comes from the subtitle, 'An essay on phenomenological ontology'- its a thorough analysis of the nature of existence from the point of view of human consciousness. Sartre begins with our most basic knowledge and works his way up to the complexities of human relationships, leaving nothing out. The first Part (of four) of the book centres around the two fundamental components of consciousness. Being is what we are aware of as existing; and Nothingness signifies any kind of negation, such as what we identify as missing, or even the giving of boundaries to an object. Consciousness is shown to be the agency responsible for introducing nothingness into the world: it is we who decide where the boundaries lie or who notice a component missing from the whole. Hence Sartre distinguishes two species of being: in-itself, i.e. a fixed, definable object in the normal understanding of the word; and for-itself, something with free will and which, therefore, is constantly moving beyond what it is was towards something new. Part II deals in-depth with the for-itself, Parts III & IV move on to relationships between for-itselves. One of the other reviews condemns Sartre for lack of argument. In fact, there is nothing to argue for, this book is a description, Sartre regards knowledge derived from closer scrutiny of the subject matter as superior to that elicited by chain of reason. Actually, the misunderstanding here is fundamental, and boils down to the conflict between the analytic and continental schools of philosophy.

This book is anti-religious, anti-scientific and anti-analytic. These three facts are the reason for a lot of general abuse that is hurled at the book, Sartre, and continental philosophy as a whole. However, with an open mind you will find that Sartre makes a very strong case for himself. The prose is difficult to follow, there is no disputing that, however, it is premature to dismiss the work as impenetrable, or even 'confused and obtuse'. I am an A-level student with no formal background in philosophy and I found no insurmountable problems. Continental philosophy is almost always like this, and the reason for it lies in the nature of the content. Sartre is attempting to describe something that precedes logic, and if you are willing to accept that such a notion is possible you will realise that it makes redundant the use of clear-cut definitions and logical language structure. Instead, Sartre must resort to using almost poetic descriptive methods (paradox and oxymoron abound), and the result of this is that the reader must take a more active approach to the understanding of the text. You have to 'think around' the words and sentences to find a meaning that is coherent. Sometimes this requires adapting your interpretation of earlier material. Having read to the end, I can assure you that there is a least one way of understanding what Sartre is trying to put across, although it is a time-intensive endeavour. I would recommend reading a short introductory book, some of Sartre's fictional works or Existentialism And Humanism, to get an idea of what you're in for; you're liable otherwise to regard yourself as having wasted a considerable amount of life-time and 13 quid on top of that. Also, Sartre kicks off with an immense amount of jargon, if you are without a basic grounding in philosophy, something like Penguin's Dictionary of Philosophy will prove useful.

It's not an easy read, and I can't agree with everything said, but for the most part it is incredibly perspicacious. It is written with an intensity that simultaneously demands and enthrals. Sartre's philosophy answers a lot of questions very well, and if you are both interested and determined enough to want a full account of his thought, this book is wholeheartedly recommended.

Satisfyingly Weighty, 03 Nov 2004
Alongside Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, de Beauvoir's Second Sex and Heidegger's Being and Time this book seems to have that requisite broadness of the beam to be considered foundational existentialist fodder. Which is curious, really, given the anti-foundationalist nature of existentialism. But on to content - this is definitely not the place, like the other tomes mentioned above, to start from for an understanding of existential phenomenology. For that I heartily recommend "Existentialism: A reconstruction" by David Cooper.
This, the "seminal" work of Sartre, is a thorough examination of the differences and relationships between thing-like beings and mind-like beings, to some degree aimed at overcoming the cartesian division of the subject from the world, and couched in Sartre's own attempt at phenomenological prose, which is at best paradoxical and at worst utterly confusing and easily misunderstandable. Statements like "man is what he is not and is not what he is" need pages of clarification to draw out the sense in which nothingness, or nihiliation is an integral process in the human project of self-identification. Much of what Sartre says is (badly) rehashed Heidegger, who I found much easier to understand, but Sartre does depart from Heidegger on several very important points, and also peppers his work with some quite specific real-world examples of what he means, a practise not favoured by the Master. It is also iluminating to read a work that many bandwagonesque 20th century "existentialists" in the parisian cafe culture probably never waded through, and now, at a time when Sartre is unpopular, is probably a better time to read this work, unhindered by hype and "movements". Some of the key elements of Sartre's thought presented here he later repudiated or at least doubted, especially during his romance with communism, such as the radical nature of human freedom to create itself, however, it is possible on returning to this work after reading elsewhere to come to the conclusion that Sartre himself misunderstood this work in his later years, and that he never really did underplay the significance of intersubjectivity after all.
I found the most illuminating passages in this weighty tome are those regarding "the look", "bad faith", "authenticity" etc. It is also facinating to see how all those quotations from Sartre that have been (mis)appropriated by others actually sit within this text in quite different contexts to how they have been used, and this goes for those colourful examples regarding "vertigo", pierre's "absence in the cafe", the "waiter playing at being a waiter" and so on.
This book is a very challenging read in terms of its style and its density, but extremely rewarding and surprising, especially coming to it after having read only second or third hand accounts of Sartre.
I rate this book despite its sheer awkwardness, with one single provisio: Sartre's attempt at examing sexual encounter is most amusing, if not profoundly silly!

The most underated classic of all time!, 15 Aug 1999
The review before mine says that there is a God shaped hole in existential thought. I disagree. Being an existentialist deals with man's acceptance of powers greater than his own. God is not the focus, and yes Sartre has a problem with the God idea, but God can exist if he exist's with the individual. There need not be a hole. Man is minute, but in his own life he is usually more important than anything. This does pose a problem for the western ideal of God, but it does not destroy the existence. The book will show you a God like hole only if one exists already, within you.

A valiant, but only partially successful effort, 24 Nov 1998
The New Oxford History of Art represents the first massive effort to rethink this field in detail since Nikolaus Pevsner launched the Pelican History fifty years ago. The volumes are well printed, advantageously priced, and generally refreshing in their point of view. Preziosi's volume is sui generis in that instead of dealing with a period or theme, it is a second order study--of the study of art history. It combines an anthology with interspersed commentary. Unfortunately, the Preziosi commentary, demonstrating the author's effort to find a new approach, is marred by opaque language and a sketchy presentation of ideas. For example, he says that one of his approaches will be based on the principle of the anamorphic image. Although he reproduces one by Holbein, he does not adequately explain it. Still, for those with an interest in the subject this volume is worth struggling with.

Once it was thought-provoking, now dangerously out-of-date, 07 Jun 2007
I am interested by this book, because it has had its impact on the way history is taught. But now - sixteen years after it was first published - it is a pinnacle of everything wrong about historical theory in the modern world. There as some things which are just plain patronising about it, like the idea that historical literature is different from the past: 'This might strike you as odd for you may have missed this distinction before..' on page 6 (Oh really? Like I hadn't noticed the difference between a book about the blitz and having bombs dropped on me.) But the important issue is the post-modernist bias of text-obsession. It criticises history on the grounds that to 'do' history you must read texts, which are just discourses. This is fundamentally wrong. Yes, you must read texts, but you must also look at archaeological remains, to feel sensations, to be alive. To be alive now is the best evidence we have as to what it was like to be alive in the past. One suspects, reading his book, that Jenkins has never really been alive. Rather he reduces all interaction with the past to a jaw-dropping receptiveness to textual information. For most people the questions posed by the past, and the answers to those questions, are not matters of text but correlation (or contrast) between past evidence and present reality. As a result this book may well be held up (soon) as a key example of how attempts to use post-modernist ideas to control history are bound to fail, even if they cause us to look again at our sources. If Jenkins' theories held true, every word in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography would be dodgy, open to doubt. If that is the case it is only so because one could, in theory, object to every source's interpretation. But one cannot - there is no doubting that princess Diana died in 1997. Life is too short and history is too interesting - and history is too great and life too interesting - to pay heed to the arguments advanced in this book

Fatuous, overly-critical and irritatingly smug, 10 Oct 2003
Having read this book as part of a series of books for a Uni course, compared to the likes of Marc Bloch, Karl Marx and others, I couldn't help wondering why, if he knows so much about the problems with historical writing, Jenkins has never bothered to write a history book, rather than a historical theory book. Others have criticised the traditional methodology of historians but put their own ideas into practice to demonstrate what they mean. Jenkins seems to have neither the imagination nor the ability to write history, so instead he has turned his attention to criticising it. Having said this, he has some interesting ideas, but they must be compared to the writing of Richard Evans (In Defence of History), Bloch and as many others as possible, which will rather show up the flaws in his reasoning.

A book that will change the way you look at everything, 19 Apr 2002
Rethinking History is an essential guide to the debates concerning the world we are living in, relevant not just for historians but for everyone. It raises interesting questions concerning our education system, politics and our perception of "bias" and "truth" when it comes to the past and our attitudes towards it. In some places the book leaves a great deal to be desired in its grammar and sentence structure, but get beyond the bad use of the English language, and this book does in fact have some very important things to say. Believe me, it will change the way you look at everything!

A fresh look at Historiography, 23 Apr 2001
I picked up this book having read EH Carr, and with an open mind, and was not disappointed. Jenkins really hits the nail on the head with this insightful book that prompts one to take a fresh look at some of today's most controversial historical problems. It is a very engaging, readable book that has been so useful in my personal study of history, particularly in the attention paid to the relevance and irrelevance of historical sources and facts. I thoroughly recommend this to anyone studying History!

Excellent, 21 Apr 2008
Good tips and very easy to read, has helped me review my essay writing before I go to university. I enjoyed reading this book and I am keeping it for future reference.

Ambition is the most destructive of all powers (Euripides), 09 May 2007
Plutarch's 6 biographies of Roman politicians/generals give a fair picture of a decadent Rome in the 1st century B.C.: mighty unequal distribution of wealth and `legal safeguards inadequate to deter the forces of law and order from murder.' `Since the whole state was rotten within itself, it was in the power of any bold man to overthrow it.' Bold were men like the generals, `who had risen to the top by violence.'

Plutarch's portraits of `Gaius Marius' and `Crassus' are very superficial.
On the contrary, his picture of `Sulla', the first Roman dictator, is very clear-cut: `Sulla, a butcher. (He got) immunity for all his past acts, while for the future he was to have the power of life and death, the power to confiscate property, to found new cities or to demolish existing ones.'
A brave `Cicero' attacked Sulla's murky business transactions in court.
`Pompey' restored the powers of the tribunes, the representatives of the plebeians, and the rights of the classes outside the Senate to serve on juries in law courts. He worked together with `Caesar' to destroy the powers of the aristocracy. After they grabbed power, they fought one another: `armies of the same kin, ranks of brothers, here the whole manhood and might of a single state was involved in self-destruction.'
Why did they fight? Out of greed and personal rivalry.
Caesar won and asked to be given all powers. The Romans opted for the Hobbes/Machiavelli solution: `the rule of one man would give them respite from the miseries of the civil wars, and so they appointed Caesar dictator for life. This meant an undistinguished tyranny; his power was now not only absolute, but perpetual `... until the Ides of March.

Plutarch's dramatic talent produced a shocking tale, full of `putting to death', `cutting into pieces', burning to the ground, slaughtering, enslaving, looting and plundering.
A must read for all those interested in the history of mankind.


Crash course of democracy, 20 Feb 2005
This is the collection of biographies of Marius, Sulla, Crassus, Pompey, Caesar and Cicero. Plutarch tells us how these powerful men used Roman democracy for pushing their personal agendas. The pattern kept repeating: our hero finds allies and strikes alliances, gains power, gets provinces and armies voted for himself and for his friends, eventually ambitions clash and the dictator emerges through armed conflict. Many lessons on nature of man can be learned from this book.

Plutarchs most dedicated biography, 05 Jul 2003
Having purchased several of Plutarch's work as companions to study courses, I must say that this is the most thorough and accurate of his compiled works. There is always a certain degree of anecdote and humour to his work but these biographies of the six men responsible for the fall of the Roman Republic seems to be a more serious affair. A must for anyone interested in Rome and the rise of Caesar.

The road from ex-minister to ex-con may have only taken five years, but for Jonathan Aitken it was a Damascene experience. The high-flying, debonair Tory Member of Parliament, tipped for glory in a rapidly disintegrating party, lied under oath during a libel case against The Guardian newspaper over accusations of corruption, pimping and arms dealing with Saudi princes, and most ignobly, got his daughter Victoria to sign a false witness statement. His very public demise and humiliation should be enough to arouse sympathy from the hardest heart, but what led a man of his privilege and ability into such an unedifying moral mess is harder to fathom. His writing is determinedly articulate and fluid, despite a guarded tone that renders the political memoirs solid but unspectacular, beyond sharp words for Michael Heseltine and entertaining vignettes of Margaret Thatcher's extraordinary rampaging ego. He relates at length his experiences of the Middle East, his political successes and family affairs (including the discovery of a daughter he had never known about), but understandably the majority of the book is given over to the legal and factual wrangling that preceded his prison stretch, in which he maintains an uneasy stance of belligerence and hand-wringing. The binding agent throughout is his redemptive religious zealousness, which seems sincere, but on occasion cloyingly sticks in the throat with its insistence. Aitken the man, like Aitken the politician, seems perpetually in need of an audience and approval, be it from family and colleagues when rehearsing speeches, or from Him Upstairs. For the moment he has retreated into himself, and while this intriguingly uneven account may not close that particular chapter, it prepares the way for the next in what has become an unenviably eventful life. --David Vincent

Interesting book, 18 Nov 2008
This was an interesting and thought provoking book suitable for either history students or just people with an interest in history.

It touches on various topics e.g. how cats were highly valued in Ancient Egypt but tended to be ill-treated in Middle Age and Early Modern Europe. This illustrates that attitudes in different times and places vary.

Also interesting was a discusion about how historians can use documents made for one purpose to obtain information about something different provided that they take care. I think that this book goes well with R J Evan's book " In Defence of History".

A Short History of History, 11 Jun 2005
Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy, but overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

Essential reading for anyone interested in History, 09 Jun 2002
This is an excellent, well written and thought provoking book about what it might mean to do History (and most other things). Students and readers of all ages will find it a valuable aid to reaching an understanding of the many different kinds of history there are and of how to go about choosing, reading and enjoying them.

A must for anyone who's even vaguely interested in history., 01 Feb 2001
This is a lively, provocative book. Arnold introduces, in a very personable and readable manner, some central questions about what history is, and can claim to be, and how it can be "done". He explores these questions through some entertaining and refreshing examples of historical source material.

Arnold strikes a balance that carries the reader through the complexities of the issues at hand without descending into patronising simplification, or bewildering jargon. He obviously has a passion for his subject, and this comes across very strongly in the book.

If you think history is all "kings and battles" and BBC2 programmes about archaeology, read this book- it might change your mind.

Makes a Brilliant Doorstop!!! , 01 Feb 2008
I would recommend this "existentialism Bible" to only two types of believer-

a)the serious philosophy student who has to read it because their tutor said so

b)prisoners of war or similar, as a method of torture.

This is tedium incarnate. What Jean-Paul does is spend 650 cursed pages rambling aimlessly and vaguely about the nature of existence only to draw such earth-shattering conclusions like "consciousness is consciousness of consciousness" and (too) many other frankly useless anecdotes.

For something bordering on relevance, I'd urge those still compelled to explore existentialism to instead read something by Camus, a superior writer who doesn't suffer verbal diarrhoea (J-P seems to repeat himself over and over without really adding anything to his highly suspect and largely fatuous non-arguments). Try "The Outsider" or "A Happy Death" by Camus- they bring the ideas of existentialism into something resembling clarity of perspective.