Inorganic Chemistry [Paperback]

PETER W. ATKINS D.F. SHRIVER (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback
• Publisher: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS; Third Edition edition (1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 019850330X
• ISBN-13: 978-0198503309
• Product Dimensions: 10.9 x 8.7 x 1.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (28 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,739,540 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

21 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Good scope, difficult to read, many errors, June 21, 2000

By 

Craig MACKINNON (Thunder Bay, Ontario Canada) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Inorganic Chemistry, Third Edition w/CD (Hardcover)

Perhaps I didn't pay as much attention to the 2nd edition, but it seems to me that this 3rd edition of Shriver and Atkins is not as well written and contains more errors than its predecessor. Or perhaps, the other author of the previous two editions, Cooper Langford, was the best writer of the three.

First, the good points. I chose this book as the text for my 3rd year inorganic courses because of the scope. No other textbook out there covers the same breadth of material. Meissler/Tarr and Cotton/Wilkinson both suffer from too heavy an emphasis on metal-based chemistry, which doesn't help those of us teaching 2 half-courses in inorganic chemistry - one on the main group, one on transition metals. The material has been kept current with examples from the (relatively) recent literature, something other texts do not do well.

Now for the bad. Atkin's books are usually difficult to read, but at least they are rigourous and complete (e.g., his Physical Chemistry, which I find an invaluable reference). Unfortunately, in this book he does not improve his prose, and the thoroughness is lacking, as well as the profusion of errors make it difficult and confusing for the student.

What does this all mean? Someone needs to write an inorganic text that is exactly this book, except better written. I will continue to use this text, but I will continue to check all the other new ones in the hope of finding a better one.

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Good intentions but fails to deliver., January 16, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: Inorganic Chemistry (Hardcover)

Aspiring writers of inorganic textbooks face the dilemma of producing something too encyclopedic like Cotton and Wilkinson or too sparse like Miessler and Tarr. Atkins and Shriver strive for a happy balance, and I generally like the organization and how it is updated with contemporary material. However, I have to agree with earlier reviewers who deplore Atkins' poor writing and the proliferation of errors.

If you're looking for a readable inorganic textbook, try Huheey. It needs some updating, and admittedly it is not error-free either, but at least you'll learn something and the prose is elegant. The chapters on coordination chemistry and periodicity, for instance, are second to none. Cotton's early editions (<3rd) were comparable to Huheey, but the deletion of "introductory material" and the unabashed glorification of organometallic chemistry at the expense of everything else render it useless for the student.

If the publishers could gently tell Atkins that his talents lie elsewhere than in textbook or popular writing, then perhaps this textbook might go somewhere.

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Atkins slaughters another chemistry subfield., September 20, 2002

By 

Thomas F. Wall (Massachusetts, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Inorganic Chemistry, Third Edition w/CD (Hardcover)

Having muddied the waters of physical chemistry, Atkins proceeds to write this low-grade inorganic text. This book is laughable next to the Huheey, Keiter et al text. This text is also far below the Miessler & Tarr text.

This book is printed in large text, in black & white, with some line art. It has no more pages than M&T but is twice as thick. Its descriptions are shoddy and the explanations lacking.

Do yourself a favor and pick up the Miessler and Tarr text and leave this book alone.