It is a bit outdated but still worth reading, specially the chapters about the rise of reason. It changed my perception about current state of things. As a Washington Post reviewer wrote, this is "a hand grenade diguised as a book" and I think it describes perfectly Saul's powerfull arguments and analysis about our western society.

One of my favorites, will remain a part of my personal library

I got a copy of this book through inter-library loan and had to return it since my lovely wife and I took our summer vacation in November. I will have to pick up my own copy somewhere, but that might be a problem. The long first chapter that I read, made me realize that it is not a fast-read book, like a novel, but one that needs to be contemplated as you read each paragraph. History and philosophy make for strange bed partners. The copy I had came from a college library.

The central argument presented in this book sounded interesting: the mutation of Reason as a corrupting force in western society. Specialization, expertise and the needless (or self serving) complexity of language prevalent in todays society as a pernicious element to to western governments and its citizens. I found it almost ironic when reading the chapter titled The Faithful Witness, where Saul described classic literature as a concise, clear and understandable way of writing that has great impact on the reader and therefor the public as a whole. The irony is that Voltaires Bastards was overly written, often overly complex and sometimes tedious. This is not to say the book isn’t without deep philosophical insight into the modern world, when describing the modern technocrat (macnamara, Kissinger ) he’s spot on in his analysis. The contradictory nature of arms production and the dependence of western industrial and financial infrastructure dependent on these “goods” was especially illuminating. Overall a good book, but a bit too long

If you enjoy insights into socio-political behavior through the west`s climb into the sunlight and the irrational choices made by our self appointed leaders than this book will illuminate. I read it cover to back then just picked my way threw it at random, it kept me interested and wanting to come back to check facts and observations. It`s one of those few books that remains prominent on my shelf and when I have nothing to new to read I go back to Ralston`s fabulous insights.

I just keeping picking it up from time to time and read a few pages. I am interested but there is nothing yet to grab me and put my seat into the chair for a long winter's night of reading !

It will always be such for a book like this. I will eventually get through it - because I want to.

I am now taking it off my 'reading' list. I have many more books of a stronger interest and intrigue than this one.

Best political science book ever.

I am sympathetic to the argument that rationality has trumped humanism but how can you make the argument without resorting to rational argument? A conundrum not solved by this book.

It ends up being a mishmash of straw man argument, questionable fact, and lengthy diatribes in search of an editor.

And, at the end, the proscription is to question? Did I need to read 600 pages to be told that?

It barely gets two stars because of my sympathy for the thesis. Ok, maybe a little extra for the rants against Kissinger. Oh how I miss the days when he was the target of such vitriol!

I was impressed by the introduction to this highly touted book. His central point, that the 'reason' of the Enlightenment age, and to which we modern westerners pay lip service, has run amok, that our world is run by soulless technocrats, is not new, but I was eager to see what ammo he brought to bear.

Alas, what I found was a personal essay masquerading as a historical overview. Page after page of unsupported opinion offered as fact, sometimes as judgments about individuals. I kept asking myself "Where did he get that about Richelieu?" "Paoli's Revolution directly led to the French Revolution? Really? Really?"

When I got to his blithe summation of Metternich's intentions (and those of the other chief players at the Congress in 1814) I was shaking my head; the author was almost writing fiction, certainly opinion, and absolutely none of it footnoted. Did he use any primary sources?

Even his pronouncements about literature were suspect, for example when he airily says that Flaubert intended the reader to identify with Madame B. Um, no. He got it right about how this was a new twist in the stream of literature, but (according to Nabokov, who has read extensively in Flaubert's letters, etc) Flaubert was absolutely appalled when a woman wrote to him saying how closely she'd identified with E.B.--Flaubert was writing a modern novel in which the characters were butterflies pinned to a board for the reader to examine. Identifying was not in the equation.

Saul also throws off a prediction that The Big Sleep and one of Chandler's other novels will be read in a hundred years while Barth will be forgotten. While I don't particularly care for Barth either, and the point about writing for an elite is well taken, are our descendents really going to have such a paucity of literature that they will reaching back for white guy shoot-'em-ups, however tautly written?

I'd say that Saul's more sure of his ground in modern times, and his points should be taken into consideration by anyone trying to figure out how we got in the hellish mess we're in now. But his historical and literary referents? Trainloads of salt!

KOBOBOOKS

All are guilty (including ourselves). We continue to perpetuate our material existence over what is right. Saul is unafraid to attack with vehemence the systems and leaders of the free world. Bravo!

Insightful and "inciteful." This is the most comprehensive and prescient social criticism I've ever read. It's broad topics and accurate reflections are profound. It's hard to believe this book was first published in the 1990s. Obviously we didn't listen.

It's a tough read, if you're actually reading it. The pages and ideas are dense, but well worth the effort.