Customer Reviews

The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written: The History of Thought from Ancient Times to Today

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

I struggled through the enitre book, and then read all the comments here, and the sum total of all of this is as follows:

1. Seymour Smith does suffer for the same impenetrable prose that he castigates many of the authors he is writing about, especially, as mentioned before, the lengthy sentence structure he is in love with. (As you can see, it is contagious)

2. Anyone who has not read at least 20% of the books in the table of contents need not try this book until they have. Smith is tracking influences in western thought and without a BA in Philosophy, you may not stand a chance

3. He is an agnostic liberal, and not liberal in the American Dem/Rep fashion, but as in liberal like a British left Labour type. His suggested venom towards the church, to be fair about it, is based mostly on judgements of the behavoir of the Catholic Church from 800 - 1700, which almost everyone can agree was not their finest hour.

4. His comments on Gnosticism are interesting as he sees a tie in between it and many of the undelying themes of modern religions. I would suggest anyone interested in this actually do some original source reading with an open mind. Smith does at least point you in some good directions for that.

5. Be prepared to consult a dictionary to define some words chosen by Smith. Also, many of the reviews expect that you have read the work in question. One unfortunately gets the feeling that Smith is sometimes either trying to show off his knowledge, or like many professors (and some I met at Oxford) one who just likes to hear himself talk.

In summation, the earlier the entry the better. His reviews of ancient literature are the best in the book, as he focuses much more on thinkers than pieces. However, by the end of the book, when he is discussing books that obviously had an impact on him as they were written, his prejudices against the authors are much more implicit. This is especially true is his feeble attempts to explain modern psycholgy, physics, and most of all, economics.

Read it if you are already well versed in the history of philosophy and want a new viewpoint on some old arguments. Use it as a guide for some items you might want to read in their original form. But, if you are looking for the Cliff's Notes of these books, keep on trucking...

They are not to be found here...

I am sorry to admit that I have rather mixed feelings about this book. On one hand, it is a fantastic collection of what are undoubtedly some of the most influential books know to man. Given the limitation of 100 books, Seymour-Smith has done a fine job, in terms of scope and of wise selection.

HOWEVER, I have found this book to be one of the most convoluted reads I have ever experienced. For example, in the chapter concerning Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Woman" (page 301), the reader is assaulted with this sentence: "William Goodwin, who became Mary's loving husband - she lost her life after giving birth to their daughter, who became Mary Shelley - devoted much of his time to the memory of her and to the printing of her writings (including her letters to him in the candid and explicit 'Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman); but for many years she was known as a "prostitute" and her ideas rejected on such grounds, or on grounds like it - "lascivious", "disgusting", "shameless", "advocate of priapism" (this from a Rev. Polwhele, horrified by the discussion of the "organs of the generation" in one of her books)." A PERIOD! FINALLY A PERIOD! Alas, the books is full of such sentences, lined one after another throughout the book.

One also needs a good encyclopedia readily available, as the book also has a number of editorial errors: for instance, the same chapter on Wollstonecraft states she was born in 1859 (page 301), when of course, this is not the case. I also noted some errors in the chapter on Heroditus.

So, while I find the content of this book excellent beyond reproach (when it is not in error), I must say the writing itself is laborious to follow. Still, I would recommend the book as a good introduction to some classic books that should be on everyone's reading list.

OK, so it's full of run-on (and on and on and on....) sentences, and it has an abundance of Christian-bashing (although raised a Christian, I did find myself agreeing with the author most of the time), and he did leave out the other Little Red Book, by Harvey Penick, but how can you not appreciate the sheer girth of this guy's insight into all of these.... Sorry, I'd better end this sentence and start a new one. You see, not only have I read it through twice, but this book is a mainstay next to the toilet. Despite its obvious flaws, this collection of 100 refreshingly blunt book reports is simply one of the most inspirational things I've ever read. It stunningly reminded me of how limited my influences have been in shaping by beliefs (or lack of), and was instrumental in my decision to get a Masters in Social Science. I'm obviously not speaking to the nit-pickworthy scholars out there, but for the thirsty non-intellectuals ready to realize that most of what we know is what we've been told by other narrow minded (however well meaning) people. And arguing about who or what's left out is a moot point; this book is merely a starting point to expanding our capacity for understanding others. Of course, like Mr. Seymour-Smith's, all this is just my opinion.

If you want a dry philosophy text book that is stuffy and sensitive to the status quo then this book isn't for you. Seymour-Smith is really hard on the establishment, particularly the Christian establishment. He's not over fond of Political Correctness either. In a book that deals with epistemology I found his being highly opinionated most refreshing, another reason that I highly recommend this book: Seymour-Smith can be really funny.

Many reviewers seem to have forgotten the purpose of the book. It was not to show off the pyrotechnical writing skills of the author or his strong opinions or his knowledge of literature. It was to identify the 100 Most INFLUENTIAL books ever written. The structure is similar to the "The 100 Most Influential People" as is the content. In both cases, it is the religious and spiritual realms that have exerted the most influence with political philosophy and scientific breakthroughs secondary. There may be a greater quantity of the later two but what has truly shaped mankind are the I Ching, The Old Testament, The Upanishads, Avesta, Dhammapada, Analects, The Way, etc.

The author does not timidly offer the easy way out, saying that it could have meant this or that they may have been right. No, he states what he thinks emphatically. For those who blasted his left-liberal stance, they should note that he takes on all comers. He savages the eco prophets of doom as well as the Marxist Left. In the preface he skews Richard Dawkins, the new High Priest of Atheism, by saying his books will NEVER be included because he has contributed nothing original and besides, what he has written is "ludicrous". So tell us what you think, Martin! He omits E.O. Wilson because he treats people like his beloved ants. Yet he has praise for Aquinas and Augustine even as he decried their faith. He distinguishes between popular classics ("Gone With the Wind") and literary classics ("War and Peace"). He skipped Whitehead and Russel for Hegel. So this is not a random selection of "popular" works - a few are obscure.

The descriptions and commentary are jewels - his skewings of Hegel, Chomsky, Martin Luther and Newton are worth the price of the book alone. One can argue with "Candide" (represents the Enlightenment) or Malthus's
"The Principle of Population (included because Malthus was wrong and policies deriving from this were harmful). The one, similar thing uniting all these books is their promulgation of an idea that has changed mankind for better or worse. This collection proves that by far, "the pen is mightier than the sword".

As a sort of intro humanities course this is certainly worth reading. Martin Seymour-Smith brings to bear a lot knowledge on the books he writes about and more often than not he is able to look at the books and their authors in novel ways. If there is one criticism I have of this book it is that the author can come off as terribly arrogant. But if he is arrogant then his analysis is also incisive and almost always rings true. And I definitely came away with a few books to add to my wish list. Also worth reading is Seymour-Smith's Guide to 20th Century Literature.

My! My! OH MY!

It would seem from the reviews that this British blighter, Seymour-Smith, has certainly gotten up the nose of the 1-star wimps of Amazon.

Imagine! - the audacity, the impudence, the sheer gall of a man who actually isn't afraid to say what he thinks! (But folks, deep down inside isn't that what all wimps would like to do but are afraid to?)

So what if he thinks Dawkins is an idiot? Maybe Dawkins is an idiot.

So what if he thinks Hawking's ideas are rubbish? When you consider that theoretical physics is merely a highbrow branch of science fiction tarted up with mathematics and dealing with totally unprovable speculations I'm inclined to think Hawking's ideas are rubbish too!

So what if he loathes Christianity? Hey, I hate to break it to you but so do many other people.

And as for him liking the Gnostics, perhaps he's right. Perhaps Gnosticism isn't a Christian heresy at all - perhaps it's Christianity that is a Gnostic heresy. Haha. I'll bet you never thought of that! He has, by the way, written quite a good short book on Gnosticism that I can recommend Gnosticism: The Path of Inner Knowledge

So let's lighten up folks! Let's be tolerant and allow this British curmudgeon to speak his mind. His book is a wonderfully refreshing change from all the insipid and hypocritical PC tripe we are being served up today.

And after all, wasn't it another scoffer, Democritus, who once said:

"Of what use is a thinker who doesn't annoy anyone?"

Personally I love the guy!

This was an interesting and useful book but Mr Seymour Smith is very opinionated and injects his opinion into every area of the book.

His personal politics also come to the fore much more often than necessary and welcome.

If you can get it at a deep discount it is worth it.

I initially had the same reaction as some here regarding Marty's style. But after familiarizing myself with him and his work, I realized that the problem was all mine.
Most of us are coming to a bona fide phenomenon like Seymour-Smith from the standpoint of modern article writing, i.e. hack writing. This is now the norm and has become our standard.
Marty, on the other hand, has been reading primarily truly great literature, in unimagineable quantities, his entire life. In addition to this book, for example, one should take a gander at his 1450 page "The Guide to Modern World Literature". He had read all the authors' entire ouevre, plus apparently their letters, as well as all of the major critical assessments of each.
So, let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he probably knows what a good sentence looks like.
In addition, Anthony Burgess compared him favorably to Samuel Johnson (no less), and before Marty passed away he produced what has been hailed as an "extraordinary" collection of poems.
But, besides his style, is the content. I personally can't imagine that there has been any single book produced in modern times which has said so many important, perhaps essential, things about the written works, and their authors, which have, more or less, created western civilization.
I don't believe that those of us who surf the internet, or are intellectually mostly consumers of information, have earned the right to pass judgement on something as truly substantive and meaningful as this book.
Try reading all the works he has and I guarantee you, that his sentences will start to seem downright awe-inspiring...
This book, and the books it is about, should be required reading by anyone prior to their being awarded any kind of college degree.

I'm rather dismayed at the unending assult on MSS's choice to include esoteric literature.

I think we tend to forget the vision of the book is to outline the 100 most influential books. Nowhere is it stated that any of the literature is going to be weighed on the basis of truth or in the case of philosophical texts, judged by how well they can explain what we percieve to be real (the basis by which we typically judge philosophical texts.)

The inclusion of Sufi, far and near east, as well as mystic ideas--and MSS's defense of them, represent the influence those ideas have had on that culture.

Various esoteric ideas have been practiced indepth on the continent of asia and the middle east. These ideas are best understood by esoteric groups, groups to whom many of those in political and social positions go to for advice.

These ideas, as practiced by those who understand them, have no doubt had unimagingable influences on the climate of these regions for thousands of years.

We can hope to, in a book of summary, understand fully these ideas, and the impact they have. For instance, G. I. Gurdjieff is listed as the author of All and Everything, one of his texts. He, in this book recieves a token amount of pages in explination. The book in question is roughly 1,300 pages, written fully in allegory.

While some might be quick to dismiss MSS's election of texts, perhaps this springs partially from a misunderstanding of the ideas conveyed.