lucien_david's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
An excellent overview of the period of dual revolution. Hobsbawm notes individual national crises to highlight an overall revolutionary trend in the period of industrialization.
miguelf's review against another edition
DNF - was saying a lot (in 3 volumes no less apparently) without saying that much.
andreaschari's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
johnclough's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
This first part in a work of sweeping ambition is delivered with such confidence and authority that there can be little doubt as to the power of Hobsbawm's genius. The task of writing a 'general history' of a period should not be underestimated, but Hobsbawm manages to join the dots in a way that feels like it puts key events into their context without unduly forcing a certain narrative. Yes, Hobsbawm's Marxism shows itself in the tendency to focus on power struggles between classes. This never feels gratuitous or inappropriate, though, given the setting of the French and Industrial Revolutions. Hobsbawm is not just great at joining up the dots of history; I found his level of reading and insight into each individual area of exploration pretty staggering. This is perhaps most evident in his whistle-stop tour of the arts, humanities, and science of the era in the closing stages of the book. While perhaps not as essential as his later work on the 20th century, The Age of Revolution remains a genuinely inspirational intellect and a profoundly insightful read.
kosr's review against another edition
Toward an Industrial World
I feel I have to explain the lack of a star rating for this review. Skip to the fourth paragraph if you dont want to read about goodread users review framework.
I've seen far too many reviews on goodreads of books in which the reviewers make a statement of how they "didn't like this novel; the author divulged too much" or, "I found it to be overally dull and difficult to read". In other words, the reviewer has chosen to place their personal opinion over and above engaging their mental faculties to ascertain whether what they have just read will be useful to others. The reason I make mention of this is because it creates bombastic review sections on goodreads (something I take seriously when looking to see whether a new book I'm going to read has a decent review average), in which individuals have entirely refused to look introspectivly at whether it was perhaps their own reading environment, and experience, that affected their overall opinion. The sheer amount of books I've looked at with a five star review, followed by a one star review, followed by a five star review, followed by a___ It's simply stupifying to behold.
A thought. Did the reader expect the book to be easier when going in? Was the subject matter different to what was originally anticipated? Was their background knowledge of the topic in a dissatisfactory place to begin reading this book? Were they unable to find time to read it properly, and subsequently was the book left for a long period of time only to be picked up again a month later (which, of course, would result in a further schism in said readers positive reading experience of said book)? Was the book actually an 'in-between' book that was meant to be read quite quickly to make room for other reads (and subsequently overstayed it's welcome as a result)?
Every single point made above happened during my reading experience with this book. Was this Hobsbawms fault? To a large extent the answer is no. However, the list above is far from exhaustable, and many reviewers may choose to rate a book lowly as a result of their poor reading experience. And perhaps they're correct. Maybe whatever they're reviewing really is a universally poorly written piece of work. Or maybe - more likely - said book (and this applies SO heavily to non-fiction / historical based work) just wasn't the right fit for the reader, and despite a rough read, the reviewer could think of a few other people who might like said books particular style more than the reviewer themselves. As I read more and more, I find less and less reasons to rate a book lowly. Unless a text has proven to be full of lies, or awfully written in general, there may be something worth passing on to others, despite a person's own distaste of a work. Sharing of knowledge is more important than our own little nags, and you'd be surprised how much your own environment and state of mind affects your reading process. Case and point: my experience reading this book. My outside environmental issues became such an impediment to my enjoyment of this work, that I simply feel my bias is too overwhelming, and a star review too subjective. It's of course impossible to omit bias entirely, but checking them should be of the utmost importance. I certainly know I failed to do it in some of my previous reviews, and this book - if it's given me anything it's this - has been a lesson in bias checking.
However, I digress; on to the review. As mentioned above, I had a rough ride with this book. The process went as follows:
1. Read in intense 30 minute confused bursts, not feeling like I was taking anything in.
2. Come away from said session feeling intellectually stimulated in a weird way, feeling as though reading more will yield a better result.
3. Forget 95% of what was just read the next day.
4. Repeat.
There's no way to describe this work considering my difficulty with it was so impeding. The best thing I can do is make some points below for people who I think WOULD like this book:
The only thing I will say is that I had a similar vibe reading this as I did with Hannah Arendts Origins of Totalitarianism. I feel Hobsbawm was trying to weave together a picture of history that injected the thoughts and feelings of Europe at the time into the pages of this book. As such, this automatically makes it a difficult read. Not to mention his scholarly writing style and tone. On the topic of him being a die hard communist, (even with the knowledge of Stalin's atrocities), I found I didn't mind that so much as I did his obvious sitting in society when penning this book out. The man was a socialist but he writes like a moderate liberal of his time. Other reviews on here will give you a good idea of this, and I won't copy and paste what I agree with here.
I still find myself confused as to what makes this stand out from other historical novels. It's clearly up my street seeing as I love history from a birds eye, wide view. Yet, I can't pin it's purpose. Hobsbawm doesn't just account the events in The Age of Revolution chronologically, and neither does he make a book with a strong opinion on whether the world was better or worse at the time (oh god, I'm starting to sound like him now), he remains balanced, yet distastefully distant from those who he talks of in the middle and upper classes of the years 1789-1845, and he seems to reserve true negativity for individuals rather than whole movements (apart from the "primitive man" movement) which baffled me in some places. It truly was a confusing read for me. Perhaps a second read when I'm older will reveal this to me like aged wine.
Yet, I do feel I will finish the remaining three of this series at some point. There's a uniqueness to Mr. Hobsbawms style that I find myself mildly addicted to. Perhaps you'll find this too if you decide to pick this up. . .
*Something I actually thinks missing from the world today more than ever, and something I support for being in books for the most part. But there's a balance. Sometimes there's such a thing as too much nuance if that even makes sense.
I feel I have to explain the lack of a star rating for this review. Skip to the fourth paragraph if you dont want to read about goodread users review framework.
I've seen far too many reviews on goodreads of books in which the reviewers make a statement of how they "didn't like this novel; the author divulged too much" or, "I found it to be overally dull and difficult to read". In other words, the reviewer has chosen to place their personal opinion over and above engaging their mental faculties to ascertain whether what they have just read will be useful to others. The reason I make mention of this is because it creates bombastic review sections on goodreads (something I take seriously when looking to see whether a new book I'm going to read has a decent review average), in which individuals have entirely refused to look introspectivly at whether it was perhaps their own reading environment, and experience, that affected their overall opinion. The sheer amount of books I've looked at with a five star review, followed by a one star review, followed by a five star review, followed by a___ It's simply stupifying to behold.
A thought. Did the reader expect the book to be easier when going in? Was the subject matter different to what was originally anticipated? Was their background knowledge of the topic in a dissatisfactory place to begin reading this book? Were they unable to find time to read it properly, and subsequently was the book left for a long period of time only to be picked up again a month later (which, of course, would result in a further schism in said readers positive reading experience of said book)? Was the book actually an 'in-between' book that was meant to be read quite quickly to make room for other reads (and subsequently overstayed it's welcome as a result)?
Every single point made above happened during my reading experience with this book. Was this Hobsbawms fault? To a large extent the answer is no. However, the list above is far from exhaustable, and many reviewers may choose to rate a book lowly as a result of their poor reading experience. And perhaps they're correct. Maybe whatever they're reviewing really is a universally poorly written piece of work. Or maybe - more likely - said book (and this applies SO heavily to non-fiction / historical based work) just wasn't the right fit for the reader, and despite a rough read, the reviewer could think of a few other people who might like said books particular style more than the reviewer themselves. As I read more and more, I find less and less reasons to rate a book lowly. Unless a text has proven to be full of lies, or awfully written in general, there may be something worth passing on to others, despite a person's own distaste of a work. Sharing of knowledge is more important than our own little nags, and you'd be surprised how much your own environment and state of mind affects your reading process. Case and point: my experience reading this book. My outside environmental issues became such an impediment to my enjoyment of this work, that I simply feel my bias is too overwhelming, and a star review too subjective. It's of course impossible to omit bias entirely, but checking them should be of the utmost importance. I certainly know I failed to do it in some of my previous reviews, and this book - if it's given me anything it's this - has been a lesson in bias checking.
However, I digress; on to the review. As mentioned above, I had a rough ride with this book. The process went as follows:
1. Read in intense 30 minute confused bursts, not feeling like I was taking anything in.
2. Come away from said session feeling intellectually stimulated in a weird way, feeling as though reading more will yield a better result.
3. Forget 95% of what was just read the next day.
4. Repeat.
There's no way to describe this work considering my difficulty with it was so impeding. The best thing I can do is make some points below for people who I think WOULD like this book:
- Data nerds. Love data and history? Go nuts with this. The chapter on "Land" is a real treat.
- Like nuance? This book has an abundance of it. People couldn't quite feel one way, yet neither the other way in the 19th century according to Hobsbawm. It was mildly frustrating to me but I know other readers will enjoy the devilish details.*
- Like well defined chapters that compress history? Hobsbawms done the work. Each chapter is divided very precisely into different aspects of the world at the time, and Hobsbawms done all the rough research so you don't have to.
- Left leaning history. It's most certianly not right-leaning, and the vast majority of the book is dedicated to talking about the proto-prolitariat in various ways.
The only thing I will say is that I had a similar vibe reading this as I did with Hannah Arendts Origins of Totalitarianism. I feel Hobsbawm was trying to weave together a picture of history that injected the thoughts and feelings of Europe at the time into the pages of this book. As such, this automatically makes it a difficult read. Not to mention his scholarly writing style and tone. On the topic of him being a die hard communist, (even with the knowledge of Stalin's atrocities), I found I didn't mind that so much as I did his obvious sitting in society when penning this book out. The man was a socialist but he writes like a moderate liberal of his time. Other reviews on here will give you a good idea of this, and I won't copy and paste what I agree with here.
I still find myself confused as to what makes this stand out from other historical novels. It's clearly up my street seeing as I love history from a birds eye, wide view. Yet, I can't pin it's purpose. Hobsbawm doesn't just account the events in The Age of Revolution chronologically, and neither does he make a book with a strong opinion on whether the world was better or worse at the time (oh god, I'm starting to sound like him now), he remains balanced, yet distastefully distant from those who he talks of in the middle and upper classes of the years 1789-1845, and he seems to reserve true negativity for individuals rather than whole movements (apart from the "primitive man" movement) which baffled me in some places. It truly was a confusing read for me. Perhaps a second read when I'm older will reveal this to me like aged wine.
Yet, I do feel I will finish the remaining three of this series at some point. There's a uniqueness to Mr. Hobsbawms style that I find myself mildly addicted to. Perhaps you'll find this too if you decide to pick this up. . .
*Something I actually thinks missing from the world today more than ever, and something I support for being in books for the most part. But there's a balance. Sometimes there's such a thing as too much nuance if that even makes sense.