Scan barcode
roseleaf24's review against another edition
2.0
Medal Winner 1922
Done! Thank goodness! While some of the chapters were interesting, and most were fairly short, thus breaking up history into manageable chunks, this was not easy to get through. No way would I have finished it if I wasn't so close to finishing all the Newbery winners. The editorialization got ridiculous, and calls the lasting value of this book into serious doubt for me. I can't imagine giving this to a child or young adult as an actual history of the world, and I'm not sure who would at this point. It's much more Western Civilization than World History, and while it speaks against the "gentle savage" idea, it speaks from exactly that perspective in other places. It also denies many aspects of orthodox Christianity and devalues the impact of Christianity on the world, while assuming its readers are all Protestants.
For the record, I did not actually read all of the edition I have. 482 pages was plenty; I didn't feel it was necessary to read all the chapters that have been added since the book's original publication. Since my intention is to read the Newbery winners, I read the portions that won the Newbery.
Some particularly noteworthy passages:
"It is the duty of the honest chronicler to give a true account of all the good and bad sides of every historical event. It is very difficult to do this because we all have our personal likes and dislikes. But we ought to try and be as fair as we can be, and must not allow our prejudices to influence us too much."
This being said far enough in that his own likes and dislikes have been made more than clear to me. And at the beginning of the chapter on the Reformation where he makes absolutely no attempt to explain the theological reasons for anything.
"In less than thirty years, the indifferent, joking and laughing world of the Renaissance had been transformed into the arguing, quarrelling, back-biting, debating-society of the Reformation. The universal spiritual empire of the Popes came to a sudden end and the whole of western Europe was turned into a battle-field, where Protestants and Catholics killed each other for the greater glory of certain theological doctrines which are as incomprehensible to the present generation as the mysterious inscriptions of the ancient Etruscans."
Granted, I'm a Lutheran, but I can easily explain the theological differences that sparked the Reformation. I'm not going to kill anyone over them, but I can explain them, and have been able to explain them since about second grade. People may not care, but they could understand if they wanted to.
"Hence Russia received its religion and its alphabet and its first ideas of art and architecture from the Byzantine monks and as the Byzantine empire had become very oriental and had lost many of its European traits, the Russians suffered in consequence."
But we're not biased or anything.
Done! Thank goodness! While some of the chapters were interesting, and most were fairly short, thus breaking up history into manageable chunks, this was not easy to get through. No way would I have finished it if I wasn't so close to finishing all the Newbery winners. The editorialization got ridiculous, and calls the lasting value of this book into serious doubt for me. I can't imagine giving this to a child or young adult as an actual history of the world, and I'm not sure who would at this point. It's much more Western Civilization than World History, and while it speaks against the "gentle savage" idea, it speaks from exactly that perspective in other places. It also denies many aspects of orthodox Christianity and devalues the impact of Christianity on the world, while assuming its readers are all Protestants.
For the record, I did not actually read all of the edition I have. 482 pages was plenty; I didn't feel it was necessary to read all the chapters that have been added since the book's original publication. Since my intention is to read the Newbery winners, I read the portions that won the Newbery.
Some particularly noteworthy passages:
"It is the duty of the honest chronicler to give a true account of all the good and bad sides of every historical event. It is very difficult to do this because we all have our personal likes and dislikes. But we ought to try and be as fair as we can be, and must not allow our prejudices to influence us too much."
This being said far enough in that his own likes and dislikes have been made more than clear to me. And at the beginning of the chapter on the Reformation where he makes absolutely no attempt to explain the theological reasons for anything.
"In less than thirty years, the indifferent, joking and laughing world of the Renaissance had been transformed into the arguing, quarrelling, back-biting, debating-society of the Reformation. The universal spiritual empire of the Popes came to a sudden end and the whole of western Europe was turned into a battle-field, where Protestants and Catholics killed each other for the greater glory of certain theological doctrines which are as incomprehensible to the present generation as the mysterious inscriptions of the ancient Etruscans."
Granted, I'm a Lutheran, but I can easily explain the theological differences that sparked the Reformation. I'm not going to kill anyone over them, but I can explain them, and have been able to explain them since about second grade. People may not care, but they could understand if they wanted to.
"Hence Russia received its religion and its alphabet and its first ideas of art and architecture from the Byzantine monks and as the Byzantine empire had become very oriental and had lost many of its European traits, the Russians suffered in consequence."
But we're not biased or anything.
mrsbrharris's review against another edition
3.0
This book was sooo long. I had a hard time getting into it because it started with evolution, which I obviously don't agree with. However, I did learn a lot and it was interesting to see which events they focused on. The original author died and a few chapters were added by another author and I found his style of writing to be more to my liking.
natasoud's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
1.0
not a banger lol
I’d say the book’s a little early anthropology, about half about Greece/Rome/Christianity, then a bunch of European history.
Reads like a textbook and is obviously outdated and racist as hell toward like, everybody.
Most of the anthropology he talks about has been long debunked and as a person who knows a bunch about the modern stuff, it was a painful read.
The last chapter though is the author explaining why he chose to include this or that and admits he thinks some of the chapters drag and wanted to start the whole book from scratch but the publishers wouldn’t let him re-write. I do appreciate the honesty.
Also the big sell for the book at the time was that it was an *illustrated* history book and that history books without pictures would never be exciting to children, so I guess I’ll thank him for starting that trend?
bibliophileemily's review against another edition
3.0
This first Newbery Medal winner certainly is an ambitious book to try to cover the entirety of human history. Obviously there are gaps and plenty of 1920s white male Protestant bias, but I still found it an interesting read, at the very least as a look at the perspective of the period when it was written.
I read the 1984 version that had extra bonus chapters and found those interesting as well for the same reason.
I wouldn't necessarily recommend this book to everyone, but for children's librarians or anyone studying children's literature, I think it's worth a read, even if just skimmed to get a feel for the writing style and pictures.
I read the 1984 version that had extra bonus chapters and found those interesting as well for the same reason.
I wouldn't necessarily recommend this book to everyone, but for children's librarians or anyone studying children's literature, I think it's worth a read, even if just skimmed to get a feel for the writing style and pictures.
emetrock's review against another edition
3.0
I cannot believe I actually finished this book. It is probably the most amusing and tedious book I have read. Mr. Van Loon sums up his book perfectly in Chapter 62, "Colonial Expansion and War: A Chapter Which Ought to Give You a Great Deal of Political Information About the Last Fifty Years, But Which Really Contains Several Explanations and a Few Apologies," (one of my favorite chapter titles, by the way), when he writes:
"The publishers wanted to print a history that should have rhythm -- a story which galloped rather than walked. And now that I have almost finished I discover that certain chapters gallop, that others wade slowly through the dreary sands of long forgotten ages -- that a few parts do not make any progress at all, while still others indulge in a veritable jazz of action and romance. I did not like this and I suggested that we destroy the whole manuscript and begin once more from the beginning. This, however, the publishers would not allow." (446)
(I can't really recall any chapters that galloped, but I'll give that one to you anyway, Van Loon. Oh, and congrats on writing the world's longest subtitle: "National Independence: The Love of National Independence, However Was Too Strong to be Destroyed in This Way. The South Americans Were the First to Rebel Against the Reactionary Measures of the Congress of Vienna, Greece and Belgium and Spain and a Large Number of Other Countries of the European Continent Followed Suit and the Nineteenth Century was Filled With the Rumour of Many Wars of Indepence.")
I do have to say this about Van Loon -- he is a very self-aware author (as the above paragraph indicates) and one of the only "nonfiction" children's authors I've read who freely acknowledges his own biases and encourages his readers to seek out other sources so they can make their "own final conclusions with a greater degree of fairness than would otherwise be possible" (451). Gold star for you, Van Loon.
And gold star for me, too, for actually finishing the book. Whew.
"The publishers wanted to print a history that should have rhythm -- a story which galloped rather than walked. And now that I have almost finished I discover that certain chapters gallop, that others wade slowly through the dreary sands of long forgotten ages -- that a few parts do not make any progress at all, while still others indulge in a veritable jazz of action and romance. I did not like this and I suggested that we destroy the whole manuscript and begin once more from the beginning. This, however, the publishers would not allow." (446)
(I can't really recall any chapters that galloped, but I'll give that one to you anyway, Van Loon. Oh, and congrats on writing the world's longest subtitle: "National Independence: The Love of National Independence, However Was Too Strong to be Destroyed in This Way. The South Americans Were the First to Rebel Against the Reactionary Measures of the Congress of Vienna, Greece and Belgium and Spain and a Large Number of Other Countries of the European Continent Followed Suit and the Nineteenth Century was Filled With the Rumour of Many Wars of Indepence.")
I do have to say this about Van Loon -- he is a very self-aware author (as the above paragraph indicates) and one of the only "nonfiction" children's authors I've read who freely acknowledges his own biases and encourages his readers to seek out other sources so they can make their "own final conclusions with a greater degree of fairness than would otherwise be possible" (451). Gold star for you, Van Loon.
And gold star for me, too, for actually finishing the book. Whew.
kylauren1723's review against another edition
1.0
This book was… boring. That’s all there is to it. Some points that he had on the French Revolution were somewhat interesting, but I cannot quite understand how this is considered a children’s book. It’s more like a textbook. I found it extremely boring. And long. Too long. I guess it’s pretty interesting how you can compare religion to the book. Like, when he talks about Moses and parting the Red Sea and stuff
balletbookworm's review against another edition
3.0
I read an original 1921 printing of this book and the obvious "great white man" viewpoint of the author/narrator would be very comical (from a 21st century standpoint) if the author/narrator weren't so darned serious. This kicked off my Newbery project (attempt to read all the Newbery Medal awardees ever), after which I realized that I wasn't going to tolerate that viewpoint for very long if I read them all straight through in order from the very beginning of the Newbery Medals. So I'm going to skip around.
jennutley's review against another edition
3.0
Yes, I am working through the Newbery list. And this one always loomed out there both for its length and subject matter. So I bought a copy from amazon (Please DO NOT buy a copy from amazon. My copy is a crappy OCR'd version with NO PICTURES which is ironic for a book whose epigraph reads "What use is a book without pictures?") and read a chapter at each lunch hour at my desk. Be warned, this one isn't a fast read.
There is no doubt that a history book written in the 1920s will have a different slant than we are used to today. There was no political correctness. The Civil Rights Movement hadn't happened yet. Once again, we are focused on the Dead White Men. And since I fancy myself someone who knows a little bit about the Tudor period, there were enough trouble spots with just that period that I don't completely trust the accuracy of the book. (But then again, as someone who has spent some time publishing books, trusting everything I read went out the window a long time ago.)
That said, there is plenty to be learned here. It is a perspective on things I didn't have before. And I really appreciate how the author chose to include interesting, obscure people that were catalysts of major happenings. One of my favorite things to do was to take a name or a place I was not familiar with (like Madame de Stael) and start a wikipedia chain looking up the person and linking on and on down the line.
When trying to write the story of all mankind in 500 pages, you have to pick and choose. I think Napoleon got more than his fair share of coverage. One of the most unexpected chapters which totally broke with the style of the rest of the book was the one about Jesus of Nazareth which was told in four pages and was simply an exchange between an uncle and his soldier nephew who were contemporaries of Christ.
Since the book was published in 1922, the chapters on WWI really hit close to home. WWI is such a neglected war I liked getting a overarching perspective from someone who had lived through it.
BTW, the publisher has added a handful of new chapters to bring the book up to the year 2000. I particularly liked the stuff about WWII and the mistakes Hitler made in WWII.
This book has inspired me to read more history books and will always remind me to take my history with a grain of salt.
One more Newbery down. Two to go.
There is no doubt that a history book written in the 1920s will have a different slant than we are used to today. There was no political correctness. The Civil Rights Movement hadn't happened yet. Once again, we are focused on the Dead White Men. And since I fancy myself someone who knows a little bit about the Tudor period, there were enough trouble spots with just that period that I don't completely trust the accuracy of the book. (But then again, as someone who has spent some time publishing books, trusting everything I read went out the window a long time ago.)
That said, there is plenty to be learned here. It is a perspective on things I didn't have before. And I really appreciate how the author chose to include interesting, obscure people that were catalysts of major happenings. One of my favorite things to do was to take a name or a place I was not familiar with (like Madame de Stael) and start a wikipedia chain looking up the person and linking on and on down the line.
When trying to write the story of all mankind in 500 pages, you have to pick and choose. I think Napoleon got more than his fair share of coverage. One of the most unexpected chapters which totally broke with the style of the rest of the book was the one about Jesus of Nazareth which was told in four pages and was simply an exchange between an uncle and his soldier nephew who were contemporaries of Christ.
Since the book was published in 1922, the chapters on WWI really hit close to home. WWI is such a neglected war I liked getting a overarching perspective from someone who had lived through it.
BTW, the publisher has added a handful of new chapters to bring the book up to the year 2000. I particularly liked the stuff about WWII and the mistakes Hitler made in WWII.
This book has inspired me to read more history books and will always remind me to take my history with a grain of salt.
One more Newbery down. Two to go.
julie_responsibly's review against another edition
3.0
I think I just read a kind of flip summary of everything my dad knows about history. A good classics education circa 1950 with enough offensive lines to keep you on your toes. Winner of the first Newberry Award in 1922, it may be worth reading with an eye towards understanding how >80% of the white world thinks about history. Just don't look for anything about Latin America, Africa south of Egypt, or actually most of Asia and the Middle East, TBH.