You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.08 AVERAGE
3.08 AVERAGE
Not sure where to start. As a work of fiction and fantasy, it would be brilliant but published as a history book as it is; there are no words!
this is one squirrelly book, limited for sure, but if the point is “imagination is key” then i’m certainly not one to disagree !
I was confused and lost more than anything, ironically, that's what I think this book was attempting to prevent.
This book is a mishmash of thought and history. Booth has an annoying style & makes giant assumptions about what his reader sees or doesn't see. However, it is interesting & I've gained some background knowledge that I didn't have before. There are strange connections to books that I've just read, or am reading. For example, I now know about the "natural philosophers" that Victor Frankenstein read before going to university at Ingolstadt.
What a let down!!! I picked up this book hoping for interesting insights into the similarities between disparate belief systems and cultures, with maybe a hint of conspiracy theories thrown in for fun. What I got, however, was a confusing, addled and mildly annoying load of drivel.
Worst. Book. Ever.
Worst. Book. Ever.
Often interesting, at times even inspiring, but this book suffers from a too-ambitious attempt to tie together every single religious, pseudo-religious, mythological and esoteric thread from the present day back to ancient history.
i really tried my best not to dnf but the whole book is just so silly, it’s as though the author is trying so hard to stretch and connect threads only to end up in a tangled mess of a rambling conspiracy
i mean, it is interesting to investigate seemingly thematic similarities across cultures and beliefs, but this just feels too outrageous
not to mention how western-centric the majority of the book was and if there was even a mention of eastern beliefs or history, it’s not as expounded; if you, as an author, claims that you’re writing a book exposing the ‘secret history’ of the ‘world’, then you better ensure you make good on your word otherwise it just reeks of not-so-implicit bias of western-centrism
i mean, it is interesting to investigate seemingly thematic similarities across cultures and beliefs, but this just feels too outrageous
not to mention how western-centric the majority of the book was and if there was even a mention of eastern beliefs or history, it’s not as expounded; if you, as an author, claims that you’re writing a book exposing the ‘secret history’ of the ‘world’, then you better ensure you make good on your word otherwise it just reeks of not-so-implicit bias of western-centrism
This book has me very divided. On one hand it did make me think again about my spirituality and about the occult history that is lurking but more in terms of arguing with the author mentally. I now understand the people on wikipedia who go around randomly scattering "citation please" comments. This book made me want to do that.
Basically Mr Black or Mr Booth (he openly admits to the pseudonym on the cover) looks at the world and divides the progress of the world into semi-digestible chunks. He argues that our view of the world has become more rigid curtesy of science and that we are missing out on a lot of stuff that could give more meaning to life by sticking with this rigidity.
However, and it's a big however, this reads like that friend you have who has read way too much in a subject and you mention a historic figure and they're off. And you can't interrupt them because they've found a person to discuss this topic with and they will, at length. This almost comes across as the transcript of their side of the conversation.
Interesting? Yes, often in ways where it makes you want to look up other stories and tales about the people mentioned. Sparks off an urge to look deeper.
Flawed? Yes, almost completely ignores the female principle of things. The bibliography is written in very small font and nothing is cited, ever. He lurches from topic to topic without any real pathway.
But overall a springboard for someone who has stagnated in their research. Something to make you want to hunt up some of his bibliography and read further, stretch your mental muscles and learn more.
Basically Mr Black or Mr Booth (he openly admits to the pseudonym on the cover) looks at the world and divides the progress of the world into semi-digestible chunks. He argues that our view of the world has become more rigid curtesy of science and that we are missing out on a lot of stuff that could give more meaning to life by sticking with this rigidity.
However, and it's a big however, this reads like that friend you have who has read way too much in a subject and you mention a historic figure and they're off. And you can't interrupt them because they've found a person to discuss this topic with and they will, at length. This almost comes across as the transcript of their side of the conversation.
Interesting? Yes, often in ways where it makes you want to look up other stories and tales about the people mentioned. Sparks off an urge to look deeper.
Flawed? Yes, almost completely ignores the female principle of things. The bibliography is written in very small font and nothing is cited, ever. He lurches from topic to topic without any real pathway.
But overall a springboard for someone who has stagnated in their research. Something to make you want to hunt up some of his bibliography and read further, stretch your mental muscles and learn more.
I read this as part of a broad research project on the history of alchemy. My review is in two parts:
With my historian hat on, I would say that the book is generalizing and overly reductive, and has a hand-wavey approach to dates that made my head hurt ("no no no," I whispered while reading, banging my forehead on the pages, "why are we now centuries ahead of where we were in the last paragraph? Is he being misleading on purpose??"). The author is clearly widely read, but this book is in no way an authoritative history: it's more narrative than fact. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if you know to expect it, but it needs to be said. Also, the author struck me as a bit cruel in his descriptions of the scientists & philosophers in his story, which makes the text feel more like gossip than anything else.
With my pop culture mystery-lovers hat on, I would say that the book brings up some interesting points, but must be approached with a GRAIN OF SALT. Many grains, in fact. It's more an exercise in critical thinking than the tell-all "theory of life, the universe, and everything" that it may appear to be.
With my historian hat on, I would say that the book is generalizing and overly reductive, and has a hand-wavey approach to dates that made my head hurt ("no no no," I whispered while reading, banging my forehead on the pages, "why are we now centuries ahead of where we were in the last paragraph? Is he being misleading on purpose??"). The author is clearly widely read, but this book is in no way an authoritative history: it's more narrative than fact. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if you know to expect it, but it needs to be said. Also, the author struck me as a bit cruel in his descriptions of the scientists & philosophers in his story, which makes the text feel more like gossip than anything else.
With my pop culture mystery-lovers hat on, I would say that the book brings up some interesting points, but must be approached with a GRAIN OF SALT. Many grains, in fact. It's more an exercise in critical thinking than the tell-all "theory of life, the universe, and everything" that it may appear to be.
My review will echo that of many others here. I DNF'd this book at about half way. I really wanted to be interested; but the condescension and lack of any acknowledgement of actual timelines or, you know, scientific evidence, brought me to quit. (It doesn't help the reader for the audio production is awfully snooty sounding. I know, I know, he has a British accent and me calling it snooty is probably offensive, but seriously. It was extra snooty.)
This book makes it's own wild connections between religion, science, astrology, astronomy, and then calls it all the history based on secret societies. But refuses to acknowledge which or what secret societies (while randomly dropping references to individual ones in out of nowhere). The author also claims to have been invited to join this master secret society, but he declined membership and opted to publish their secrets instead. You think we believe they would let you do that, if "they" existed? No.
Add on to that the refusal to acknowledge that timelines for history are already rather well established (whether you're going scientific or biblical), this got confusing, and fast. And then sprinkle in the "you can't understand this because your brain is too focused on the material and doesn't understand what spiritualism means" and yeah. I got annoyed.
I mean. Give it a go. It could be interesting if you can get past the looking-down-the-nose writing and complete babbling mess of timelines. But don't strain yourself for this one, dear reader.
This book makes it's own wild connections between religion, science, astrology, astronomy, and then calls it all the history based on secret societies. But refuses to acknowledge which or what secret societies (while randomly dropping references to individual ones in out of nowhere). The author also claims to have been invited to join this master secret society, but he declined membership and opted to publish their secrets instead. You think we believe they would let you do that, if "they" existed? No.
Add on to that the refusal to acknowledge that timelines for history are already rather well established (whether you're going scientific or biblical), this got confusing, and fast. And then sprinkle in the "you can't understand this because your brain is too focused on the material and doesn't understand what spiritualism means" and yeah. I got annoyed.
I mean. Give it a go. It could be interesting if you can get past the looking-down-the-nose writing and complete babbling mess of timelines. But don't strain yourself for this one, dear reader.