Rating: 
Summary: Worth reading
Review: "Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals" is a collection of thought-provoking essays, edited by historian Niall Ferguson, that explore a number of 'what if?' scenarios such as:*What if Charles I had avoided the civil war?
*What if there had been no American Revolution?
*What if Britain had stood aside in August 1914?
*What if Germany had invaded Britain in May 1940?
*What if communism had not collapsed? As previous reviewers have noted, this book is fairly Anglo-centric; however, that should not be surprising given that a majority of the contributors are from Britain and in particular from the Oxbridge universities. The part I enjoyed the most was the conclusion in which Ferguson brings together all the essays and constructs an alternate history of the world over the last three hundred years. Other strong essays were the ones dealing with World Wars I and II. Two caveats for the potential reader: first, the introduction was extremely long and dry - basically a history of the study of history, and secondly, a general knowledge of the events discussed in the book would be a great advantage. Overall though, "Virtual History" is a very interesting read and well-worth the effort.
Rating:
Summary: Worth reading
Review: "Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals" is a collection of thought-provoking essays, edited by historian Niall Ferguson, that explore a number of 'what if?' scenarios such as: *What if Charles I had avoided the civil war?
*What if there had been no American Revolution?
*What if Britain had stood aside in August 1914?
*What if Germany had invaded Britain in May 1940?
*What if communism had not collapsed? As previous reviewers have noted, this book is fairly Anglo-centric; however, that should not be surprising given that a majority of the contributors are from Britain and in particular from the Oxbridge universities. The part I enjoyed the most was the conclusion in which Ferguson brings together all the essays and constructs an alternate history of the world over the last three hundred years. Other strong essays were the ones dealing with World Wars I and II. Two caveats for the potential reader: first, the introduction was extremely long and dry - basically a history of the study of history, and secondly, a general knowledge of the events discussed in the book would be a great advantage. Overall though, "Virtual History" is a very interesting read and well-worth the effort.
Rating: 
Summary: A must have!
Review: A quite outstanding book....the section on British Ireland is enough to turn any Irish Republican in his tracks.
Rating: 
Summary: What Is This Book Trying To Be?
Review: Believe me, I really tried to appreciate this book as either a thought-provoking exploration of scenarios of alternate history, or as a solid study of the art of history itself. I was disappointed both ways. Strangely enough, this book is purported by the publisher and editor to be both of those things, but the results prove otherwise. This book is very unfocused and academically arrogant, and it barely even explores counterfactual history, except at an extremely basic and dry interpretation of the term. Note: This book is from England and is quite Anglo-centric, so a working knowledge of British history might be an asset before you begin (this is not a criticism, just a recommendation). This book gets off to a horrendous start with Ferguson's 90-page introduction in which he attempts to explore the nuances and importance of counterfactual history. Instead he delivers an extremely tedious and repetitive treatise on the study of history itself, which has little to do with the supposed focus of the book. A large portion of this intro is dedicated to "determinism" vs. "predestination" in history, but this is historiography rather than an exploration of counterfactuals. This is also written in that dry and verbose academic style in which it is more important to endlessly pile on repetitive evidence in order to impress one's colleagues, than to actually enlighten the reader. Ferguson shows a sheer desperation to confound other historians who don't think highly of counterfactuals, and in the process forgets that he is writing a book for the public. He also complains about researchers in his field not being taken seriously, but then insults people in other fields who are interested in counterfactuals, such as sociologists and fiction writers. After this tedious start, the book doesn't get much better, as various historians contribute chapters on key episodes in history. With only a few exceptions, each author commits the errors of the introduction by failing to explore counterfactuals, which is supposed to be the point, and merely shows off his own historical knowledge in tedious ways. One noteworthy exception is the essay on home rule in Northern Ireland. Otherwise, the pattern here is to spend 95% of the essay describing what really happened in a straight historical fashion, then briefly knock off a few possible alternative scenarios without really exploring them, as if the editor forced each author to do this. In the end, this book can't figure out what it wants to be, and you will be unable to figure out why you're reading it. Is it trying to comment on the study of history itself, or present straight history with an intellectual twist, or explore counterfactuals? It tries to do all of these, with disappointing levels of success, and is only unfocused as a result. If you decide to tackle this, good luck - you'll need it.
Rating:
Summary: Counter knee jerk negativity - or why I'm buying this book
Review: Clearly the negative reviews of this book indicate that it's message is going to be difficult, mind ripping and beyond the capability of history addicts. Just as books by David Irving are extremely difficult to even consider, because they tend to go against the momentum of some seventy years of non-stop agiprop by the gereontocrat historians who like Gilbert and Schlesinger just spout the party line of the moment, and that party line that is best suited to career advancement. I am going to read this and find that kernel of brilliance I already know is in there. "It is History that travels straight from history maker to document, and from the archives to the writer and his book, without political input and free of academic prejudice, it is History that cannot be bought, and cannot be bought off."Â Wish me luck. Ciao
Signorotto Riccardo
Rating: 
Summary: This is a boring book
Review: Don't waste your time or money on this book - unless you like to read incredibly dull history. It would turn anyone off history. I would give it zero stars if I could. If you are looking for something along the lines of "What-If" or Harry Turtledove - forget it. The authors spend so much time delivering the most trivial facts that they never get down to what might have happened. B-O-R-I-N-G!
Rating:
Summary: This is a boring book
Review: Don't waste your time or money on this book - unless you like to read incredibly dull history. It would turn anyone off history. I would give it zero stars if I could. If you are looking for something along the lines of "What-If" or Harry Turtledove - forget it. The authors spend so much time delivering the most trivial facts that they never get down to what might have happened. B-O-R-I-N-G!
Rating:
Summary: Solid Historical Research
Review: Overall, I found "Virtual History" to be an excellent exploration of the value of counterfactuals in historical writing. There is no debating the quality of the writing in this book. From the rousing introduction, to the various essays, and the clever conclusion, the authors do a superb job of engaging the reader in their various areas of expertise. That said, the work overall is somewhat uneven. I believe this stems from the fact that the various historians don't all share the same comfort level with projecting the consequences of their counterfactuals. Some barely scratch the surface of what might have been, while others go into extensive detail (in particular, "What if Hitler had Invaded England", my favorite). However, this complaint speaks more to the flow of the work overall, and not to the quality of each essay. In conclusion, "Virtual History" is an outstanding work, that shows top notch research and excellent writing. My one caveat to the potential reader would be that this is not a particularly light, easy reading book. If you are looking for a somewhat less rigorous, less scholarly look at counterfactual history I would recommend "What If?" (Cowley ed.).
Rating:
Summary: Solid Historical Research
Review: Overall, I found "Virtual History" to be an excellent exploration of the value of counterfactuals in historical writing. There is no debating the quality of the writing in this book. From the rousing introduction, to the various essays, and the clever conclusion, the authors do a superb job of engaging the reader in their various areas of expertise. That said, the work overall is somewhat uneven. I believe this stems from the fact that the various historians don't all share the same comfort level with projecting the consequences of their counterfactuals. Some barely scratch the surface of what might have been, while others go into extensive detail (in particular, "What if Hitler had Invaded England", my favorite). However, this complaint speaks more to the flow of the work overall, and not to the quality of each essay. In conclusion, "Virtual History" is an outstanding work, that shows top notch research and excellent writing. My one caveat to the potential reader would be that this is not a particularly light, easy reading book. If you are looking for a somewhat less rigorous, less scholarly look at counterfactual history I would recommend "What If?" (Cowley ed.).
Rating:
Summary: Solid Historical Research
Review: Overall, I found "Virtual History" to be an excellent exploration of the value of counterfactuals in historical writing. There is no debating the quality of the writing in this book. From the rousing introduction, to the various essays, and the clever conclusion, the authors do a superb job of engaging the reader in their various areas of expertise. That said, the work overall is somewhat uneven. I believe this stems from the fact that the various historians don't all share the same comfort level with projecting the consequences of their counterfactuals. Some barely scratch the surface of what might have been, while others go into extensive detail (in particular, "What if Hitler had Invaded England", my favorite). However, this complaint speaks more to the flow of the work overall, and not to the quality of each essay. In conclusion, "Virtual History" is an outstanding work, that shows top notch research and excellent writing. My one caveat to the potential reader would be that this is not a particularly light, easy reading book. If you are looking for a somewhat less rigorous, less scholarly look at counterfactual history I would recommend "What If?" (Cowley ed.).
| 
