Scan barcode
lotteee11's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
Educational essays on the history of nations across the world. It’s very interesting to read the perspective of historians on their own countries’ history, even though it is of course just one perspective that is offered. Would recommend!
teokajlibroj's review against another edition
3.0
This is a very ambitious book, perhaps too ambitious. It's not easy to summarise the entire history of a country in only a few pages and compilations will always be hit-or-miss with authors interpreting the title differently. Unfortunately, some of the chapters are only as informative as a Wikipedia article and the book as a whole has a lack of analysis. The book fails to live up to the promise of its title and there isn't an explanation of how nations identities were formed.
sarahlreadseverything's review against another edition
2.0
Other reviewers have said much of what I would say on this one, and far more clearly and articulately than I - here's just one example. In short, for the most part this is less a book of how national identities were forged and more short, thin histories of major historical events - you'd learn more from each country's Wikipedia page.
I'd also be interested to know how the entries were selected. Of 28 countries represented, 14 are European (15 if you count Turkey, which considering their efforts to join the European Union seems not outside the realms of possibility). European history is ground that is well-covered enough already, and I would have been more interested in other regions.
Also, my Thames & Hudson print copy of this had some appalling typos. Including, in just one chapter (Japan) a random "9" in the middle of a sentence, and multiple words hyphenated randomly in the middle of a page e.g. "Capi-talist".
I'd also be interested to know how the entries were selected. Of 28 countries represented, 14 are European (15 if you count Turkey, which considering their efforts to join the European Union seems not outside the realms of possibility). European history is ground that is well-covered enough already, and I would have been more interested in other regions.
Also, my Thames & Hudson print copy of this had some appalling typos. Including, in just one chapter (Japan) a random "9" in the middle of a sentence, and multiple words hyphenated randomly in the middle of a page e.g. "Capi-talist".
generalheff's review against another edition
2.0
I am a big fan of learning new history, learning new things and particularly learning about new countries. This book, therefore, appears to be almost designed for me. In its own words, it examines how "writers and citizens in different countries ... view their own pasts" and comprises 28 essays covering 28 countries. The introduction whets the appetite even more: it promises "personal essays" whereby historians are invited to "write about how history is understood in the culture of their homelands at large". Notably, the introduction states that each historian has "not written encyclopaedic histories" though later on we are told that the writers have set out "to present their national histories, warts and all".
I believe it is this uncertainty in intent on the part of the editor, Peter Furtado, that explains why the book ultimately fails. The 28 chapters are an incoherent mixture of lists of a nation's major events (Spain, Hungary) - satisfying the 'national history' ask; and essays that cover less ground but describe better the sentiment of a people (Russia, Czech Republic) - satisfying the 'how history is understood' ask.
Given the way I read the introduction, I fully anticipated a series of essays in the manner of the Russia chapter. While still covering a fair amount of the factual history of the country, it utilises a structuring device - the West - to hold the thread of historical events together and to give a sense of national feeling (as best as can be expected in a few short pages). The chapter even includes a handful of statistics on how the Russians view themselves which was as close to a scientific attempt to consider how a nation views its history as I saw anywhere in the book.
Other chapters too take up the mantle of getting at how a country sees itself: the Czech Republic chapter - perhaps the most pessimistic in the book after the Italian - really gets at the sentiment of a people. The Netherland's chapter starts by asking "any dutchman" a question, and closes with general statements about what the Dutch think and their general attitude. The chapter is wonderfully structured around the Dutch obsession with water and its influence on their lives through the course of their history. Lastly, the Sweden chapter exemplifies what book could have been: it speaks of the Swedes' view of themselves and European views of the Swedes. At a suitably general level for about ten-pages worth, the chapter provides an overview of how the country uses its history in its construction of its self-image.
A couple of chapters step away from the theme of self-image without stumbling into encyclopaedia-making. The chapter on Brazil gives an overview of the country by way of a polemic on the twin outrages of slavery and environmental destruction. The essay on China intriguingly turns the brief on its head by describing not the history of China but the history of history itself, showing how integral record keeping and official history-making has been to the country.
But such chapters - that either really tackled the brief of describing how a country views itself or took an innovative spin on the question - are in the minority. Too many resemble the Hungary chapter, with its tedious lists of events and discussions of obscure historical figures. The author gets mired down in the details that they are likely very conversant with, utterly missing the forest for the trees.
Which is not to say the more encyclopaedic chapters cannot be enjoyable. The chapter on France contains some anecdotes and a personal touch that is much appreciated in what is an extremely dry book in the main. The chapter on Ireland is a wonderful primer on the country's recent history. Yet this is also a failure: you'd be far better off watching a well-edited YouTube video on Irish (or any country's) history than buying this book just to read a jam-packed discussion of a nation's past.
This is all so much a failure of editing, I believe, not the authors themselves. Issues with editing show up in other ways too, beyond the discordant styles of the essays: there is a lack of women represented - only six out of 28. There is only one sub-Saharan African country (Ghana) present but two Scandinavian ones. Lastly, there are some dreadful sentences that ought to have been picked up by the editor. Much as you might think this would be a reasonably issue in a book written by dozens of people for whom English may not be a first language, the most egregious example came in the Great Britain chapter: "National identity was moulded during war with France and Spain. In a period of little over a hundred years, from the early 18th to early 19th century, there was declared war with the former no less than seven times and undeclared war twice, with hostile relations existing at other times"! I was bemused, therefore, to notice a 'box quote' stating that the book was "immaculately edited"; I cannot but raise the question of a conflict of interest when a History Today quotation is emblazoned on a book by a former editor of History Today.
Even the chapters that I enjoyed in this volume still felt encumbered by the need to cover, at least briefly, the major beats of a country's history. This means even these better chapters were weighed down by what was likely editorially-imposed baggage. Far better to give the authors free rein to describe a feeling of a people and see where that took them than to put the notion of giving a "national history" as a key part of the project. This would have solved many of the issues in the book even if there was always likely an upper limit on how good a book comprising discussions of 28 countries by as many different authors could be. It is, perhaps, simply too many voices on too many themes in too few pages.
I believe it is this uncertainty in intent on the part of the editor, Peter Furtado, that explains why the book ultimately fails. The 28 chapters are an incoherent mixture of lists of a nation's major events (Spain, Hungary) - satisfying the 'national history' ask; and essays that cover less ground but describe better the sentiment of a people (Russia, Czech Republic) - satisfying the 'how history is understood' ask.
Given the way I read the introduction, I fully anticipated a series of essays in the manner of the Russia chapter. While still covering a fair amount of the factual history of the country, it utilises a structuring device - the West - to hold the thread of historical events together and to give a sense of national feeling (as best as can be expected in a few short pages). The chapter even includes a handful of statistics on how the Russians view themselves which was as close to a scientific attempt to consider how a nation views its history as I saw anywhere in the book.
Other chapters too take up the mantle of getting at how a country sees itself: the Czech Republic chapter - perhaps the most pessimistic in the book after the Italian - really gets at the sentiment of a people. The Netherland's chapter starts by asking "any dutchman" a question, and closes with general statements about what the Dutch think and their general attitude. The chapter is wonderfully structured around the Dutch obsession with water and its influence on their lives through the course of their history. Lastly, the Sweden chapter exemplifies what book could have been: it speaks of the Swedes' view of themselves and European views of the Swedes. At a suitably general level for about ten-pages worth, the chapter provides an overview of how the country uses its history in its construction of its self-image.
A couple of chapters step away from the theme of self-image without stumbling into encyclopaedia-making. The chapter on Brazil gives an overview of the country by way of a polemic on the twin outrages of slavery and environmental destruction. The essay on China intriguingly turns the brief on its head by describing not the history of China but the history of history itself, showing how integral record keeping and official history-making has been to the country.
But such chapters - that either really tackled the brief of describing how a country views itself or took an innovative spin on the question - are in the minority. Too many resemble the Hungary chapter, with its tedious lists of events and discussions of obscure historical figures. The author gets mired down in the details that they are likely very conversant with, utterly missing the forest for the trees.
Which is not to say the more encyclopaedic chapters cannot be enjoyable. The chapter on France contains some anecdotes and a personal touch that is much appreciated in what is an extremely dry book in the main. The chapter on Ireland is a wonderful primer on the country's recent history. Yet this is also a failure: you'd be far better off watching a well-edited YouTube video on Irish (or any country's) history than buying this book just to read a jam-packed discussion of a nation's past.
This is all so much a failure of editing, I believe, not the authors themselves. Issues with editing show up in other ways too, beyond the discordant styles of the essays: there is a lack of women represented - only six out of 28. There is only one sub-Saharan African country (Ghana) present but two Scandinavian ones. Lastly, there are some dreadful sentences that ought to have been picked up by the editor. Much as you might think this would be a reasonably issue in a book written by dozens of people for whom English may not be a first language, the most egregious example came in the Great Britain chapter: "National identity was moulded during war with France and Spain. In a period of little over a hundred years, from the early 18th to early 19th century, there was declared war with the former no less than seven times and undeclared war twice, with hostile relations existing at other times"! I was bemused, therefore, to notice a 'box quote' stating that the book was "immaculately edited"; I cannot but raise the question of a conflict of interest when a History Today quotation is emblazoned on a book by a former editor of History Today.
Even the chapters that I enjoyed in this volume still felt encumbered by the need to cover, at least briefly, the major beats of a country's history. This means even these better chapters were weighed down by what was likely editorially-imposed baggage. Far better to give the authors free rein to describe a feeling of a people and see where that took them than to put the notion of giving a "national history" as a key part of the project. This would have solved many of the issues in the book even if there was always likely an upper limit on how good a book comprising discussions of 28 countries by as many different authors could be. It is, perhaps, simply too many voices on too many themes in too few pages.
cardootj's review against another edition
2.0
Really ambitious project that in my opinion did not live up to the hype. I think Mr. Furtado should have either picked less countries and have a better in depth analysis or cram in less information with each chapter.
leonajasmin's review against another edition
2.0
This book is extremely hard to rate. There are plenty of authors involved which makes the task difficult, but their quality widely varies. I'd say this book is a 2.5* but decided to round it down.
I feel like getting rid of the 'Histories of Nations' part of the name would make this book feel more like it has achieved what it claims on the cover. Some chapters (five come to mind) thoroughly impressed me as they started with the main historical events and then explained why certain cultural practices are commonplace as a result, or why the nation are so patriotic about X but not Y etc. Meanwhile, others read like a simplified Wikipedia article or focused on a sociological issue and the history behind that rather than of the nation itself. It just felt like the brief given to all the authors was too vague and made this book a kaleidoscope, and not in a completely positive way.
There were a few notable printing errors, but other than these, the editing didn't seem to be a huge issue. The two main issues I noticed were that Japan seemed to have formatting issues at the beginning of its chapter and the 'g' in Erdoğan did not process correctly.
I'd say this book is useful as a quick reference. In fact, I've had this book since not long after it was published and cited some information from the Ireland chapter for some coursework. However, if one were to read this whole book without taking breaks between every single chapter, the weaknesses of this ambitious project become more prevalent.
I feel like getting rid of the 'Histories of Nations' part of the name would make this book feel more like it has achieved what it claims on the cover. Some chapters (five come to mind) thoroughly impressed me as they started with the main historical events and then explained why certain cultural practices are commonplace as a result, or why the nation are so patriotic about X but not Y etc. Meanwhile, others read like a simplified Wikipedia article or focused on a sociological issue and the history behind that rather than of the nation itself. It just felt like the brief given to all the authors was too vague and made this book a kaleidoscope, and not in a completely positive way.
There were a few notable printing errors, but other than these, the editing didn't seem to be a huge issue. The two main issues I noticed were that Japan seemed to have formatting issues at the beginning of its chapter and the 'g' in Erdoğan did not process correctly.
I'd say this book is useful as a quick reference. In fact, I've had this book since not long after it was published and cited some information from the Ireland chapter for some coursework. However, if one were to read this whole book without taking breaks between every single chapter, the weaknesses of this ambitious project become more prevalent.