H.G. Wells: A Short History of The World - book review

Considering the ambition of this book - to summarize the entire human (and natural) history into a relatively short book -, it is well written. It's full of stories, personalities, cultural events with all its dramatic shifts and, of course, wars. All of these things are strewn together a bit haphazardly into a form that's as coherent as you would expect from such an ambitious project, which is not very coherent and it won't make you understand the history of our world in its entirety, really, but it's a good collection of highlights that may lead you to investigate further. To give credit where its due, Wells does attempt to explain the connection between events and draws a loose chain in our minds; it doesn't always work, but when it does, it makes you feel smart, which is the wrong feeling to have in this case. This book won't make you smart, it could make you more curious and that's about it. As long as the reader understands that (and doesn't believe that 2-3 pages on Aristotle is enough to get him), then I see no problem. Just realize that this is a very simple introduction, and there is way more to a personality or an event in history than a few pages.

From the writing standpoint, it is more interesting to me what Wells decided to concentrate on and what he had to leave out. There's too much to touch upon, but if you read the chapter titles (from "Cosmic and Geological History" to "20th century"), you'll realize that the scope of the book is extremely vast, which due to its short nature means that it doesn't have a lot of depth. Some events are skimmed over in a few minutes, others are told in greater detail (just don't expect any serious analysis). The shallow nature of the book is not a criticism per se, it is expected due to its length. Yet still, it was quite entertaining, and that is its biggest strength. It is, first and foremost, an attempt at telling a story of the world, it isn't dry and it probably won't bore you, even if you have no particular interest in history.

The age of the book (published in 1922) also brings a different perspective from more contemporary historians - a fact which can be good but also bad, depending on particular issues. There is not a lot of bias in this book, as on more political / cultural issues Wells tried to have a neutral, almost anthropological perspective, which is slightly suprising for that time. Good on him.

I'd recommend it to a beginner, maybe even to an adolescent, as the format makes sense for that age. For an experienced reader though, it will leave you wanting for more.

Rating: 3/5