Customer Reviews

Poisoning the Minds of the Lower Orders

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is not for the fainthearted or for those who need to be told repeatedly what it is they are supposed to be learning. Hence, I suspect, the reaction of some readers to the text. Herzog spells out his purpose rather clearly in the preface, and he assumes that readers will be intelligent enough not to need to be retold over and over again. He then proceeds to demonstrate his point with an astonishing and fascinating collection of evidence from the period. It is a perfectly wonderful read, particularly for readers who are tired of abstract theory. What makes this work so powerful is its focus on and attention to details, which make the theoretical points much more powerfully by fully contextualizing them. The evidence is what makes this work worthwhile--as well as a fun read.

I had heard good things about the author's work before but had not read any myself. I came away disappointed. There are flashes of great insight at times and the author is obviously smart and well read. But after a while it becomes clear that convincing the reader of those two points is the author's main aim. The book makes readers embarrassed for not knowing the details of 18th century, obscure texts, and the author dismisses the work of other leading political theorists with one line throw away sentences. I forced myself to finish, but in the end, I agreed with Melbourne that the work is fundamentally tedious and self-indulgent.

A brilliant and original piece of work. In this book Herzog tackles conservatism with the same intellectual adeptness that characterized his treatment of various aspects of liberal theory in "Happy Slaves".

Have to agree with the reviewer from Melbourne on this one. Herzog says in the introduction that he eschews any overarching methodology, laudable in theory I suppose but not very good in practice. The result is a rather meandering narrative that lacks the benefit of a clear central argument to structure it. Probably the main strength of the book is that it draws on a staggeringly broad set of texts. [To be fair, I have not read the entire book, so you can take my criticisms with a grain of salt I suppose, though I do think I have grasped the essentials of his text.]

This book has a promising subject, the creation of conservative politics in England. In promotional material the book has been described as explaining the sorts of ideas which were developed as a reaction to the pressure for democratic change in England as a result of the French Revolution. Such a book would have been interesting.

This book rather than looking at the institutional structure of England and the response of its elite's is a mishmash of written material at the time. It rambles is unfocused and one wonders what is the point. The book is more a display of the author's knowledge rather than trying to look at the attitudes of the time and to see how they tied in with the structure of power. The book is very much an "academic treatment" in the worst possible use of that label.