Rating: 
Summary: Good -- probably the best -- but a little overrated
Review: These are a series of reworked lectures. Insightful. Useful. Good history. I would advise seeing Lewis's more to the point New Yorker article, circa November 2001 for better post 9/11 perspective.
Rating: 
Summary: concise account of arab decline
Review: Bernard Lewis's "What Went Wrong?" gives readers a concise account of the decline of Arab society over the last five hundred years, primarily by looking at different areas of competition between East and West. Lewis begins with the Treaty of Carlowitz where, for the first time, the Turks were forced to come to terms with the Austrians. Throughout the ensuing decades the Ottomans gained and lost ground, but by the nineteenth century the various populations of the empire were in revolt. "The Ottoman state and armed forces were as effective as they had ever been...it was European invention and experiment that changed the balance of power." In commerce the Arabs also lagged behind Europe. As the Industrial Revolution swept through Europe, various countries of the Middle East attempted to catch up by building factories. These efforts failed and the factories soon became derelict. Science provides another example of Arab decline. The Medieval Arabs inherited a vast corpus of knowledge from the Greeks, Egyptians, and Babylonians and they added their own insights to that received wisdom; but by the end of the Middle Ages this came to an end. "In the Muslim world,"Lewis writes,"science was reduced to the veneration of approved knowledge." It is difficult to generalize about the causes of imperial decline but one reason is stagnation. When societies are no longer able to take advantage of new information, technology, or ideas they are doomed to be left behind. "What Went Wrong?" also benefits from its unflinching moral tone. Lewis makes clear that the Arabs have no one but themselves to blame for their current problems. Among more and more Middle Easterners the question: "Who did this to us?" is giving way to "What did we do wrong?" and subsequently "How do we put it right?" "In that question," Lewis concludes, and in the various answers that are being found, lie the best hopews for the future."
Rating:
Summary: Anti-Lewis Bias is Ill-informed
Review: As a number of reviewers have noted, this is not Lewis's best book. It could have used an editing to reduce redundancy, and it leaves some important questions unanswered. For example, Lewis raises the fascinating issue of the failure of the Middle Eastern world--alone, it seems--to appreciate Western Classical music. Ergo, what? He doesn't say. One is left wondering what he meant to say by raising this issue.Having said that, I have been disappointed by the hostility toward Lewis that some reviewers on this site have manifested. Most egregiously, a reviewer on this site, whom I will not name, makes some patently untrue statments about Lewis and his work, in a seeming attempt to prejudice possible readers. To set the record straight: Lewis in fact DOES distinguish between "wesernization" and "modernization," doing so several times in the course of this book, and indicating exactly what is meant by both terms. Also, Lewis has NEVER denied the genocide of Armenians by the Turks at the beginning of the last century. Quite the opposite: in his history of modern Turkey, he gives the number of slaughtered Armenians as about 1.5 million--hardly a denial. What he said in his controversial "Le Monde" interview was that there was no evidence that the massacres represented an OFFICIAL POLICY of the Turkish government. Quite a big difference. This was his assessment as an historian who has mined the documentary record; I have no reason to doubt that he is correct. Let's drop the hysteria, shall we? The interview is available, and one is free to read it for oneself. And to say that Lewis was "convicted" in a French court without mentioning that his "punishment" was a fine of two Francs rather overstates the severity with which the quirky French legal system treated his analysis. Lewis is still one of the finest Middle Eastern historians writing in English today. He is certainly biased, but his biases run strongly IN FAVOR of the Islamic world, which he describes as being historically tolerant, original, and sophisticated (if rather arrogant in its attitude toward the "infidels" of Europe). Again, let's not distort his record. This is man who greatly admires the achievements of Islamic civilization. The fact that he views the current Middle East as failing to live up to the promise of its classical age is hardly a failure on his part. Do yourself a favor: Read his "Muslim Discovery of Europe" on which "What Went Wrong?" is largely based. It is longer, but one of the finest books you'll ever encouter on the topic of Islamic civilization's contact with the West.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointed
Review: The book did not answer the question "What Went Wrong?" I felt like a committee wrote the book. Many interesting facts which offered no answers or very little insight to understanding the difficulties in the Mideast. I also felt there was a bias against Christians. Sorry I wasted my time plowing through this book.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Primer for Muslim-Western Relations
Review: Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong" is a short summary of his extensive work on the Muslim world. The book is short, but Lewis makes excellent use of space in that he shows how Islam, especially in Turkey and Persia (now Iran), has responded to West for the past 1300 years. At first, Muslim scientific achievements far surpassed Europe, but during the Renaissance Europe made explosive gains. Islam, however, did not notice until the once backward Europeans were already knocking on its gates with superior firearms and communications. This is where the Lewis' title comes into play, as he tries to assess why the West was not only able to catch up to, but also far surpass the Muslim world in technical and commercial skills. Lewis looks at all aspects of culture and science, starting with the obvious ones like the military and the economy, but also with music, timekeeping, and women's rights. You truly learn more about your own culture by looking at others, as Lewis compares and contrasts the various strength and blind spots of Muslim and Christian societies. The book's small size makes this an excellent choice for someone who wants to learn more about Islam and its conflicts with Western thought. The American media has struggled mightily to assess the origins of fundamentalism while toeing the line of cultural pluralism. Lewis is honest and sympathetic to his subject (this is not some cheap polemic meant to capitalize on 9/11 hysteria), and his long study of Muslim civilization gives him tremendous authority. The book is short, and did originate with some lectures, but has a solid bibliography and is very accessible. With this book under your belt, you can readily branch out to more in-depth studies. For a curious American citizen (or any world citizen) who wants to know more about Islam's relationship with the West, I heartily recommend this book, which promises to begin a more productive dialogue on Western-Muslim relations.
Rating:
Summary: Read the book and write your own review
Review: I saw Professor Lewis on Charlie Rose and immediately ordered the book from amazon.com. Thanks Charlie! Thanks amazon! I read the book twice because, well, it could be edited better. However, calling Lewis a westernimperialist, islamaphobe and crusader kinda miss the point, donchathink? Take away Professor Lewis, and the question still remains: what went wrong? For me the value of this book is the forced deconstruction of our western (or judeo-christian) views. Lewis wants to help us understand the problems facing the Muslim world as the Muslims must see them. But, of course, this is impossible for those of us with western blinders. He cites, for example, the concept of an "Islamic clergy." But clergy is a Christian concept, and when we project that on the Islamic religion we end up lost in a funhouse. I liked Lewis' comparison of the "foundation myths" [and look how he explains that phrase] of Islam and Christianity. Christians were a persecuted minority for hundreds of years, but Mohammed achieved total victory (including state power) in his own life-time. No wonder secularism was such a non-starter INITIALLY for Islam. Bernard Lewis does not need to be defended for this book, and his many critics raise a number of valid points. This book is not for the polemicists: it's for those who want to try to understand the gap. Kemal Ataturk was right to be disappointed with Islam's disinterest in Gutenburg's great invention. Thanks Gutenberg. Thanks Qurrat al-'Ayn. Thanks Princess Taj es-Saltana. Thanks Ataturk. (And thanks you many fine amazon.reviewers).
Rating:
Summary: You Hit the nail on the head
Review: What a sweep of history! The only comparison he could have added that would have been better, would have been the almost identical decline in the fortunes of the Chinese in the 15th Century and thereafter, for many of the same reasons - dictatorshops unwilling to open up to new and foreign ideas (the moment anyone calls anyone else an "infidel" as justification for what they themselves are doing, be careful).
Hopefully the Chinese are now modernizing (while at the same time being careful to retain as much of their core civilization as possible), and can illustrate to the extreme Muslims that in can be done. Otherwise, as Mr. Lewis points out, there is no hope. Envy begets jealousy which begets hatred which begets what we have now.
Rating:
Summary: Ignorant of the Facts
Review: I could not get through this book no matter how hard I tried. (I love books on this issue and have a degree in Middle Eastern Relations and History) Unfortunately, this book is just more archaic scholastic babble. The underlying thesis in this book is that the west is just superior. If you read this book under that impression then - well I guess then Professor Lewis is just singing to the choir. Mr. Lewis for all of his accolades is not a very good scholar or he is more then willing to distort the truth to justify his point. He either accidentally overlooks well-known facts about the Middle Eastern culture or deliberately ignores them. I fear the later. He never actually attempts to answer his own question: "What Went Wrong". This book should have been title "We are Better - Just Get Over It".
Rating: 
Summary: What's wrong with 'What Went Wrong?'
Review: The octogenarian Bernard Lewis is probably the most prominent and influential expert on Middle Eastern history alive. Lewis' erudition is unquestionable and very impressive. Unfortunately he is also an orientalist from the old mold, whose scholarship has been challenged by revisionists such as Edward Said. It is however because of his traditionalist approach that his views go down so well with the Western public and policy makers alike. That is exactly what is wrong with 'What Went Wrong?' When picking up this booklet, the reader quickly learns that the chapters or essays are in fact the Vienna Lectures, which the author gave in 1999 for an undoubtedly very learned audience. It becomes however very clear that these lectures were not given in response to issues that have become so much more pressing since September 11 (although the author was very quick to have a second edition issued after the terrorist attacks). That does not mean the book is not interesting. In his survey of the history of the relationship between the Islamic World and Europe, Lewis displays a very detailed knowledge of Ottoman History, his actual field of expertise. He appears to be fully conversant with the available archive material and even the most obscure memoirs have not escaped his attention. In fact, the list of quoted works shows that Lewis himself has been instrumental in making these sources available. But fascinating as they may be for the scholar, they provide no more than a background for later-day developments, which have a much more direct relevance to answering the issues that are implied by the book's title. While digging deep into 18th and 19th century diplomacy, Lewis only touches briefly on intellectual history, sketching only the broadest outlines of modernist and reformist thought in Islam. There is nothing worthwhile on the surge of Islamic radicalism that engulfed the Middle East since the seventies, nor anything on the exiting ideas of certain current-day Muslim thinkers. All in all, Lewis leisurely floats along on his established - and deserved - reputation as the doyen of Middle Eastern history, pretending to give us an insight into the psyche of the modern Muslim. In order to learn about what present-day intellectual discourse in the Islamic world is all about, readers would do better to consult other publications.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought-provoking, but ultimately unsatisfying
Review: The strength of this book is a relatively compact analysis of the flaws of tradtional explanations of why Western Europe pulled ahead of the middle east, and have remained ahead by most of the indicators of modern power. Basically a series of essays (the core of which were given in Vienna in Sept 1999), the book does not really attempt to provide a clear answer to the question it asks. None-the-less, the clear exposition of the clash of Islamic and Christian culture, and Lewis' excellant use of comparisons with Western interaction with the non-Muslim East, is very thought-provoking. His claim that Western music is a metaphor for what the Middle East has never "got" about Western culture was an intriquing idea to me, and his argument that secularism (espeically separation of Church and State) and feminism (especially open participation of women in society beginning in the Middle Ages) are key differences in our societies is a challenging, but credible interpretation. As a physicist, I like his emphasis on modern science, not technology, as a source of Western power. So I learned a lot from the book, but it begged for some summarizing comments that was not provided by the short Coclusion chapter. I am glad that Lewis made these essays available to us, but disappointed that I still wonder "What went wrong?" and "How can we fix it?"
| 
