You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by chrisdavis
A Short History of England by Simon Jenkins
4.0
I sometimes suspect that writing a short history of England is more challenging than writing a complete 10 volume account. Any attempt to squeeze some 1500 years of history as gorgeously complex as that of England's is going to have to leave a lot out. This of course invites people to criticize the author for leaving out their favorite bit. And of course I am going to do exactly that later on.
First lets look at what this book does well. It is lovely to look at and includes some great pictures. Since this book is designed to look good on a shelf or coffee table that is important. The book is well subdivided into chapters and the author does a good job of discussing wider themes throughout the book. The switch from focusing on monarchs to Prime Ministers was perhaps a little too quick, but otherwise it was well done. Perhaps this seems like faint praise, but the book is well written and an enjoyable read for what it is, but I do have some problems with it that stop me recommending it as the perfect short history of England.
When writing a short history of this kind, one can imagine that the book starts out too long and ends up being savagely edited by the author and/or publisher. This has clearly happened here. Sometimes names of people and places were mentioned with no introduction and some of the transitions were poor. Parts of the book have far to many names introduced in too short a space and it just becomes a mess and hard to follow. Other times I would be left intrigued and wanting to know more. For example, when discussing Ann Bolin (Henry VIII second wife) the book says that her infidelity was discovered after an elaborate conspiracy was hatched, but it never says was that conspiracy was! Why introduce it in such a maner only to leave it out? It is probably on the editing floor somewhere.
Some sections are notably brief and leave out things that the average person reading this book will want to know more about. The book glosses over the supposed murder of the Two Princes by Richard III. Whatever the historical value and accuracy of that story, people want to know about it. And as with many of these books, way too much time is devoted to modern events. I admit there are far more sources to draw on for this stuff, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion. I don't think that Gordon Brown will be featuring in a history book written 1000 years from now. The author also puts the 2010 coalition government in a list of the 100 most significant events in English history. Really? Other omissions include a tendency to mention Ireland in passing yet offer no context nor explanation for the creation of the Irish Republic. If you are going to include Ireland in a book covering English history (and I would argue that you should) then give a proper explanation.
So overall, the book would have been a lot better had it been 500 pages and not 350. 500 is still short in my view and would have allowed the author to include additional material. It is a good book, and if you need a VERY short history of England this will suit you. Others will need to keep looking or bite the bullet and get stuck into something more comprehensive. Personally, I am going to finally read Simon Schama's three part history of England.
7/10
First lets look at what this book does well. It is lovely to look at and includes some great pictures. Since this book is designed to look good on a shelf or coffee table that is important. The book is well subdivided into chapters and the author does a good job of discussing wider themes throughout the book. The switch from focusing on monarchs to Prime Ministers was perhaps a little too quick, but otherwise it was well done. Perhaps this seems like faint praise, but the book is well written and an enjoyable read for what it is, but I do have some problems with it that stop me recommending it as the perfect short history of England.
When writing a short history of this kind, one can imagine that the book starts out too long and ends up being savagely edited by the author and/or publisher. This has clearly happened here. Sometimes names of people and places were mentioned with no introduction and some of the transitions were poor. Parts of the book have far to many names introduced in too short a space and it just becomes a mess and hard to follow. Other times I would be left intrigued and wanting to know more. For example, when discussing Ann Bolin (Henry VIII second wife) the book says that her infidelity was discovered after an elaborate conspiracy was hatched, but it never says was that conspiracy was! Why introduce it in such a maner only to leave it out? It is probably on the editing floor somewhere.
Some sections are notably brief and leave out things that the average person reading this book will want to know more about. The book glosses over the supposed murder of the Two Princes by Richard III. Whatever the historical value and accuracy of that story, people want to know about it. And as with many of these books, way too much time is devoted to modern events. I admit there are far more sources to draw on for this stuff, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion. I don't think that Gordon Brown will be featuring in a history book written 1000 years from now. The author also puts the 2010 coalition government in a list of the 100 most significant events in English history. Really? Other omissions include a tendency to mention Ireland in passing yet offer no context nor explanation for the creation of the Irish Republic. If you are going to include Ireland in a book covering English history (and I would argue that you should) then give a proper explanation.
So overall, the book would have been a lot better had it been 500 pages and not 350. 500 is still short in my view and would have allowed the author to include additional material. It is a good book, and if you need a VERY short history of England this will suit you. Others will need to keep looking or bite the bullet and get stuck into something more comprehensive. Personally, I am going to finally read Simon Schama's three part history of England.
7/10