You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.91 AVERAGE
3.91 AVERAGE
this book actually spent several months living in my underwear drawer which was the place that i kept books that were too scary or disturbing to finish, so that hopefully at a later date in time i could finish them without having to think about them right now.
i read this book the summer before sixth grade and looking back, it was a little over my head.
i think the part that made me hide it was the idea of people starving and the problem of when we give them hand-outs of food and aid, that it just adds to the problem as they will then have more children, creating more hunger and poverty...
i think i may need to reread this one to fully appreciate what my twelve year old mind could not.
i read this book the summer before sixth grade and looking back, it was a little over my head.
i think the part that made me hide it was the idea of people starving and the problem of when we give them hand-outs of food and aid, that it just adds to the problem as they will then have more children, creating more hunger and poverty...
i think i may need to reread this one to fully appreciate what my twelve year old mind could not.
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I think more people need to read this.
challenging
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
This book is a warning about the self destructive nature of our society and how if we don't change it, it will end humanity as we know it. It's a dire message, but one that is so important, which i why I'm giving it 4 stars.
That said, none of the historical claims are based in reality. Quinn was confident in his philosophical argument and made up arguments through Ishmael to support him. The changed meaning of the Cain and Able sorry from the Bible was particularity compelling, but unfortunately not based on any scholarship that I could find.
The story isn't that compelling in its own. I find Ishmael a condescending teacher and the book ends abruptly in a very unsatisfying way.
Ishmael is worth reading. A book that may reshape how you view the world, and hopefully for the better.
That said, none of the historical claims are based in reality. Quinn was confident in his philosophical argument and made up arguments through Ishmael to support him. The changed meaning of the Cain and Able sorry from the Bible was particularity compelling, but unfortunately not based on any scholarship that I could find.
The story isn't that compelling in its own. I find Ishmael a condescending teacher and the book ends abruptly in a very unsatisfying way.
Ishmael is worth reading. A book that may reshape how you view the world, and hopefully for the better.
Wow! This book made me completely rethink our place in the world and how we can best be stewards of the earth. It was an amazing, life changing read.
doesn’t hit as hard as reading this at a ranch in the wilderness, but enjoyed re-reading none the less.
i wouldn’t last one conversation with ishmael, but he does remind me of my counselor in a way.
i wouldn’t last one conversation with ishmael, but he does remind me of my counselor in a way.
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Ishmael said 🗣️ LAND BACK
I really wanted to love this book. It came recommended highly to me by someone I respected and most of the research I did on it considered it a modern classic. However, I found this is a really disappointing read. "Ishmael" is a great concept with extremely important themes, but I also found it deeply flawed.
"Ishmael" is basically a vessel for Daniel Quinn expressing his worldview, which is that modern society has developed a toxic and destructive culture that consumes nature and ignores other ways of living, which humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. And, at a broad level, Quinn's arguments are true. Maybe this is why so many people swear by this book and consider it their gateway into environmentalism. However, Quinn's arguments are riddled with psuedo-intellectualism, historical inaccuracies, and logical fallacies. Reading this book is like having a conversation with a high-iq stoner who drifted through a few college degrees and developed a theory of everything.
Quinn puts his own arguments into the mouth of Ishmael, a wise old gorilla who speaks for the natural world and preagricultural peoples. Already, I found this contrived. The didactic format is novel, and admittedly, I am a fan. But, the protagonist brings no substance to the story besides being an everyman, who says 'what?' and 'why?' at the right time.
I think the biggest criticism I have of "Ishmael" is the way it propagates false ideas about the worldviews of preagricultural peoples. Quinn dichotomizes the 'takers' and the 'leavers' - those who only consume nature and those who live in harmony with nature's law. I do agree with him that hunter-gatherers have a fundamentally different and fundamentally superior way of seeing nature than do modern, urban people, but I think Quinn's portrayal of the 'leavers' is naive and untrue. Hunter-gatherers drove large mammal species to extinction on every continent before the dawn of agriculture. Hunter-gatherers and premodern peoples have a natural worldview, epistemology, and spirituality that we have utterly lost, but they are not self-denying or naive. They are certainly 'takers' in their own way, as all humans are. I also think that the switch from 'leaver' to 'taker' was a drawn-out, gradual, and nuanced process over thousands of years of culture, not one that happened over a generation in the fertile crescent.
The biggest justification that I can come up with for this book was the time it was written. I've learned about most of the subjects covered in this book, such as environmentalism, ecology, anthropology, hunter-gatherer culture, and religion. I know that the discourse around all of these subjects has shifted significantly over the last 30 years, not the least of which is the discourse around environmentalism. Perhaps Quinn's arguments really were prescient in 1992, despite his logical errors.
I certainly think the spirit of this book holds true today, but its ethos seems to be grounded in an idealistic environmentalism of the cultural revolution that is totally dated. Personally, I think "Ishmael" needs to be permanently retired. Its enlightening message is not worth the misinformation that it propagates. I'd hope that a new generation can capture what is special about this book while not repeating its persistent flaws.
"Ishmael" is basically a vessel for Daniel Quinn expressing his worldview, which is that modern society has developed a toxic and destructive culture that consumes nature and ignores other ways of living, which humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. And, at a broad level, Quinn's arguments are true. Maybe this is why so many people swear by this book and consider it their gateway into environmentalism. However, Quinn's arguments are riddled with psuedo-intellectualism, historical inaccuracies, and logical fallacies. Reading this book is like having a conversation with a high-iq stoner who drifted through a few college degrees and developed a theory of everything.
Quinn puts his own arguments into the mouth of Ishmael, a wise old gorilla who speaks for the natural world and preagricultural peoples. Already, I found this contrived. The didactic format is novel, and admittedly, I am a fan. But, the protagonist brings no substance to the story besides being an everyman, who says 'what?' and 'why?' at the right time.
I think the biggest criticism I have of "Ishmael" is the way it propagates false ideas about the worldviews of preagricultural peoples. Quinn dichotomizes the 'takers' and the 'leavers' - those who only consume nature and those who live in harmony with nature's law. I do agree with him that hunter-gatherers have a fundamentally different and fundamentally superior way of seeing nature than do modern, urban people, but I think Quinn's portrayal of the 'leavers' is naive and untrue. Hunter-gatherers drove large mammal species to extinction on every continent before the dawn of agriculture. Hunter-gatherers and premodern peoples have a natural worldview, epistemology, and spirituality that we have utterly lost, but they are not self-denying or naive. They are certainly 'takers' in their own way, as all humans are. I also think that the switch from 'leaver' to 'taker' was a drawn-out, gradual, and nuanced process over thousands of years of culture, not one that happened over a generation in the fertile crescent.
The biggest justification that I can come up with for this book was the time it was written. I've learned about most of the subjects covered in this book, such as environmentalism, ecology, anthropology, hunter-gatherer culture, and religion. I know that the discourse around all of these subjects has shifted significantly over the last 30 years, not the least of which is the discourse around environmentalism. Perhaps Quinn's arguments really were prescient in 1992, despite his logical errors.
I certainly think the spirit of this book holds true today, but its ethos seems to be grounded in an idealistic environmentalism of the cultural revolution that is totally dated. Personally, I think "Ishmael" needs to be permanently retired. Its enlightening message is not worth the misinformation that it propagates. I'd hope that a new generation can capture what is special about this book while not repeating its persistent flaws.
informative
reflective
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A