Scan barcode
A review by mattrc
The Power of Geography by Tim Marshall
1.0
Waste of time, and poorly written.
This book is 100% false advertising. "The Power of Geography". Very little geography. "Ten maps that reveal the future of our world." The maps don't do this whatsoever.
In the first book, "Prisoners of Geography", Tim Marshall delivered what he promised. It focused on the physical geography of regions or nations and connected it to that nation's political and military strategies. I enjoyed reading it, and learned a fair bit about geopolitics.
This book, I learned pretty much nothing at all.
Each chapter has this structure:
1. A very basic map of the country.
2. A couple of pages describing the geography.
3. A fat old middle section that goes through a very basic overview of the history of that country. Usually a third of this part is dedicated to the politics of the second half of the 20th century.
4. A few closing pages of speculation about where the country might be headed in the coming years.
This gets old very quickly. The best way to read this book is to read the first and final 3 pages of each chapter.
Marshall is not very good at writing about history and it is painful to trudge through those middle sections. He clearly attempts to be "impartial" but because he gives attention to certain areas and skips over others, he falls on his arse.
He also tries to spice things up with some anecdotes from when he was out reporting in various regions. But the way he tells them makes me think he is the most boring man in the world, who happened to be at some interesting places at interesting times. One story he says that a policeman didn't thump him because he had freckles. Wow.
Also, too many instances of pro-British whitewashing of history. The colonial French were vile bastards. But Britain was just a little bit naughty and all is forgiven because we abolished slavery first. Any non-Western atrocities are given plenty of attention, however.
I am left wondering what the point of this book actually is? Who is the target audience? A reader of the first book, you would assume, has a decent grasp of global history and politics. Or is interested in it enough to competently Google specific periods or regions for more background info. So why make this second book a sub-standard history book that flails all over the place.
The cynic in me wants to say that Marshall wanted to cash in on the success of his first outing. He had some leftover chapters that didn't make the cut because the content wasn't enough. So he padded it out with a lot of history to bash out another book.
The optimist in me would say that Marshall didn't have good advice from his editors or he committed way too early to a format that he just couldn't see is broken.
Ultimately, I have to give it 1 star because I can't name one thing I took away from this book. I actually feel like I've lost some knowledge rather than gained any.
This book is 100% false advertising. "The Power of Geography". Very little geography. "Ten maps that reveal the future of our world." The maps don't do this whatsoever.
In the first book, "Prisoners of Geography", Tim Marshall delivered what he promised. It focused on the physical geography of regions or nations and connected it to that nation's political and military strategies. I enjoyed reading it, and learned a fair bit about geopolitics.
This book, I learned pretty much nothing at all.
Each chapter has this structure:
1. A very basic map of the country.
2. A couple of pages describing the geography.
3. A fat old middle section that goes through a very basic overview of the history of that country. Usually a third of this part is dedicated to the politics of the second half of the 20th century.
4. A few closing pages of speculation about where the country might be headed in the coming years.
This gets old very quickly. The best way to read this book is to read the first and final 3 pages of each chapter.
Marshall is not very good at writing about history and it is painful to trudge through those middle sections. He clearly attempts to be "impartial" but because he gives attention to certain areas and skips over others, he falls on his arse.
He also tries to spice things up with some anecdotes from when he was out reporting in various regions. But the way he tells them makes me think he is the most boring man in the world, who happened to be at some interesting places at interesting times. One story he says that a policeman didn't thump him because he had freckles. Wow.
Also, too many instances of pro-British whitewashing of history. The colonial French were vile bastards. But Britain was just a little bit naughty and all is forgiven because we abolished slavery first. Any non-Western atrocities are given plenty of attention, however.
I am left wondering what the point of this book actually is? Who is the target audience? A reader of the first book, you would assume, has a decent grasp of global history and politics. Or is interested in it enough to competently Google specific periods or regions for more background info. So why make this second book a sub-standard history book that flails all over the place.
The cynic in me wants to say that Marshall wanted to cash in on the success of his first outing. He had some leftover chapters that didn't make the cut because the content wasn't enough. So he padded it out with a lot of history to bash out another book.
The optimist in me would say that Marshall didn't have good advice from his editors or he committed way too early to a format that he just couldn't see is broken.
Ultimately, I have to give it 1 star because I can't name one thing I took away from this book. I actually feel like I've lost some knowledge rather than gained any.