malachi_oneill's review
3.0
Would have gotten 4 stars.
Yet another book that is so good and then at the end devolves into browbeating about the latest contemporary politically charged hot-topic, with a one-sided view and presumption of the issue being "settled science".
It's so frustrating when an author chooses this path.
They turn their work from a potentially much more timelessly applicable and powerful work into yet just another opinion piece on a contemporary issue.
They think they are capping their work off with the most important issue ever to be faced by mankind when in practice it alienates a large portion of potential readership and boxes the book and author into a very narrow confine of conclusion and literature.
It's quite frustrating. The authors can do whatever they want; it's their work.
They could have simply ended their work on a much longer lasting, and thus more impactful, conclusion.
Yet another book that is so good and then at the end devolves into browbeating about the latest contemporary politically charged hot-topic, with a one-sided view and presumption of the issue being "settled science".
It's so frustrating when an author chooses this path.
They turn their work from a potentially much more timelessly applicable and powerful work into yet just another opinion piece on a contemporary issue.
They think they are capping their work off with the most important issue ever to be faced by mankind when in practice it alienates a large portion of potential readership and boxes the book and author into a very narrow confine of conclusion and literature.
It's quite frustrating. The authors can do whatever they want; it's their work.
They could have simply ended their work on a much longer lasting, and thus more impactful, conclusion.
hayo's review against another edition
5.0
Any book that contains a grand unifying field theory about the human race, history and social development, whilst mentioning Isaac Asimov's Psychohistory gets 5 stars no matter what.
audaciouskay's review
2.0
I had such high hopes for this book so my level of disappointment is high. The author is very detailed in his analysis and provides ample data, but my goodness, this is one of the most long-winded books I've ever read. The conclusion is actually interesting and understandable. I can't say the same about how he gets there.
everfar's review
5.0
History is fascinating and Morris’ sense of humor and approachable prose bring this history of human social development to light.
naomi_hyde's review against another edition
4.0
Found this book so fascinating. Some parts were a bit slow and not as interesting, but the overall assessment of the West/East relationship was thoroughly examined and had thought-provoking conclusions. The last chapter was a bit wild and speculative, but overall I thought this book was great and will probably read it again in the future.
jack_reid's review
4.0
I believe I've read enough summaries of human history for a lifetime, or at least a decade, by now. And these histories all bring different perspectives to varied questions. Alongside Guns, Germs, and Steel, Ian's Morris' Why the West Rules attempts to explain why the Industrial Revolution occurred in the West (more specifically Britain) rather than China. After all, China was the more advanced society for over a millennium following the fall of the Roman Empire.
To be honest, I never finished Guns, Germs, and Steel. I found the writing dull and unfocused. In comparison, Morris uses a direct comparison between what he dubs the Eastern and Western cores of civilization to give the narrative focus through perspective. Many reviewers attack the formulaic development index, but I applaud Morris for taking a stab at quantifying historical development. I found the figures helpful for establishing perspective - how much better off were Romans than the Greeks in 500BCE? Refer to the index. If you disagree, provide a better index. However, I will admit, I'm predisposed to quantification, given my background in finance.
Morris' writing style is conversational and contains bites of trivia to humanize the vast swarths of history covered. You likely aren't going to finish the tome in a sitting, but it is easily doable in chunks of 50 pages over a week if y0u're interested in the material. I would also advise dropping off after Morris hits the 18th century around page 500. There exist better histories after the Industrial Revolution and others with more exciting takes on China's nearly inevitable rise relative to the West.
So, who should read this book? Readers interested in the history of sapiens from the development of protohumans to the Industrial Revolution, and those interested in hearing one man's theory for why Britain developed the steam engine rather than China in 1,110CE. 4/5.
To be honest, I never finished Guns, Germs, and Steel. I found the writing dull and unfocused. In comparison, Morris uses a direct comparison between what he dubs the Eastern and Western cores of civilization to give the narrative focus through perspective. Many reviewers attack the formulaic development index, but I applaud Morris for taking a stab at quantifying historical development. I found the figures helpful for establishing perspective - how much better off were Romans than the Greeks in 500BCE? Refer to the index. If you disagree, provide a better index. However, I will admit, I'm predisposed to quantification, given my background in finance.
Morris' writing style is conversational and contains bites of trivia to humanize the vast swarths of history covered. You likely aren't going to finish the tome in a sitting, but it is easily doable in chunks of 50 pages over a week if y0u're interested in the material. I would also advise dropping off after Morris hits the 18th century around page 500. There exist better histories after the Industrial Revolution and others with more exciting takes on China's nearly inevitable rise relative to the West.
So, who should read this book? Readers interested in the history of sapiens from the development of protohumans to the Industrial Revolution, and those interested in hearing one man's theory for why Britain developed the steam engine rather than China in 1,110CE. 4/5.