Customer Reviews

Inorganic Chemistry

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

For me, the utility of a chemistry text is defined in simple terms. Does it help me complete the homework assignments? Does it explain things in a way that my professor does not? Does it stand alone, apart from the instruction of my professor?

I took an Inorganic course to fill a deficiency and so I bought this book. I found it to be very disappointing. The explanations of key concepts (such as term symbols and crystal field theory) is lacking and the problems that the text works out seem esoteric and too terse for someone trying to connect the dots.

I like the Tarr and Mieslier text better.

wow, I see lots of people don't like Atkins. Read my listmania list ("fundamentals of inorganic chemistry") for other titles worth considering and then do yourself a favor and buy Concise Inorganic Chemistry by J.D. Lee - not many people are aware of this fine book.

If looking for a decent book on symmetry, group theory check out my "symmetry and group theory for chemistry students" list. These titles are for students - i.e. not designed to impress the professoriate.

I wanted to be fair after suffering through Physical Chemistry by Peter Atkins last year, but this book is every bit as horrible as I feared. My instructor has offered to give two extra credit points for every mistake we find, and I accumulated 8 points this morning while working in Chapter 4. At this rate I won't have to do anything else in the class and will get a solid A. Sadly, though, I will have learned NO inorganic chemistry in the meantime.

I am on amazon right now because I need to find a new textbook that is worth reading for my inorganic chemistry course. This book is garbage, it reads like an encyclopedia that was written by someone who already knows inorganic chemistry inside and out for someone who already knows inorganic chemistry inside and out. I had no idea the book was filled with errors because the book does such a bad job of explaining inorganic chemistry that I don't know what is being talked about most of the time. Avoid this book and if you can name a better inorganic chemistry textbook let me know.

The Preface of the THIRD edition (1999) states " We have taken particular care to ensure that the text is free of errors". If this isn't misleading, I don't know what is. The books is loaded with errors, misprints, and poorly worded sentenses. Many of the imperfections are carried over from the previous edition but new ones also appear. No students should be required to buy this book until a clean second printing is available.

The second edition (1999) of Miessler and Tarr contains errors but at least the solutions manual comes with a list of "the corrections that are most important for student use of the text".

This is an excellent reference book, but a poor text for students learning about inorganic for the first time. The discussion (Chapter 4) on molecular symmetry and point groups is INSANE. The prof who taught the course provided a number of supplementary materials on point groups, probably because this chapter is so flawed. The second part of the text is somewhat better than the first... Personally, I learned a lot from the discussions in the Guide to Solutions manual that accompanies the text; if I hadn't had that, I'd have definitely received a lower grade in the class. Overall, an average-level textbook.

Some important points in a chapter are only explained in several lines or not explained clearly. A full understanding of the concepts and chemical process cannot be achieved after reading the book. And some equations in the book jump out suddenly without being explained, which makes them much less convincing and makes the readers confused. This is not suitable for a common understanding process and a mechanical memorisation of the formulas and concepts is not good for understanding. For the chapter on quantum mechanics, a physics textbook is much better than this book. The concepts in a physics book are much more precise and rigorous than those in this book.