Rating: 
Summary: Read, enjoy, take a pinch of salt, read something else.
Review: A lot of those who have lambasted this book (oddly, all but a few have chosen to remain anonymous), call this book inaccurate. Yes, maybe. But point me to a book that is accurate about this period? Frankly, we need to remember that during the entire span Mr. Manchester is discussing, people had barely an idea of what was going on a few miles away from them. By using secondary and tertiary sources - occasionally amounting to little more than rumours - Manchester walks a fine line between truth and sensationalism indeed. But the historian who sticks to the hard facts walks the line of giving only the smallest, driest glimpse into an age that shaped the world. My advice to you is this: Use this book only as inspiration to go out and look for the truth yourself. If nothing else, it is the most intriguing look at the age I have ever come across, and raised more good, solid questions in me concerning the common past of the Western World than any other book has managed to do. I am perfectly aware that a lot of his sources are shaky, but I am also perfectly aware that these shaky sources are the ONLY sources.This book is well worth the time it takes to read it, if you truly are serious about studying the age and not just learning the dry, known facts. However, beware the bizarre fetish Mr. Manchester possesses with Magellan. While illuminating, it started to drag a tad. Just write a wholly seperate book if you want to say so much about him. Have a pinch of salt ready before you finish this wonderful work, just so you don't take it to heart, and only to mind.
Rating: 
Summary: Great historical reading
Review: Forget about the nonsense that other reviewers have written, if you like history, this one is a highly entertaining and valuable book. Looking at the criticisms, other readers point out the errors in the book, without giving many concrete examples. They seem so anxious to attack the author that one of them even falsely claims that the facts of Copernicus death are wrong in the book. It looks like the critics cannot stomach very well the attacks of Manchester on the Catholic Church and the Papacy. Too bad! Yes, there may be a few errors here and there. I think that I've detected one: Francis Drake did not take the same straight as Magellan, if I remember well my high school history lessons. But, so what? I've had fun reading the book and I've learned a lot, even if a few dates and facts are not entirely correct.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Historical Essay
Review: A great portrait of the Renaissance and Reformation eras of Europe
Rating:
Summary: Great, Even With Large Mistakes
Review: I have not often seen a book polarize readers so greatly. There are some major mistakes in the text to be sure, but it is still a fine book. Anyone who has read Manchester's other books may realize that he often puts a lot of his own feelings into his writing. (In the Last Lion, his adoration of Churchill shines through.) He has done that here and I think many are put off by that, even more than his mistakes. They should not be.
Rating: 
Summary: Good reading isn't Good Enough
Review: In reading the previous reviews, it is necessary to point out that good, gripping reading just isn't a good enough criterion for a book about history. Accuracy is first, readability comes after that. Manchester's book isn't accurate. That's a very bad thing for a history book. Be smart: Read what's true rather than sensational. Skip this one and go for the heavy weights, or better yet, go to Amiens or Notre Dame in Paris and still believe that the Middle Ages were dark. You might follow that up with a trip to Auschwitz to see how 'light' an era we now live in.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Read
Review: I enjoyed this book and believe the book is a great read. Some may question its "facts" but I noted that some of the accusations are not correct. For example, he never states that Copernicus was burned as a heretic (at least in my hardcopy editon, pages 89-91)and that it was indeed Giordano Bruno who was convicted of being an heretic and burned at the stake. Still, it is not a book for scholors. But for the general reader, it is a good introduction and will make you think about life back then.
Rating:
Summary: Best medieval history I've read
Review: _A world lit only by fire_ is by no means supposed to be a friendly look at the Middle Ages. It's a history of the days between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Age of Discovery, which led to the colonization of America and the foundation of the world as we know it today. It's gritty, compelling, sometimes funny in it's depiction, but it makes no excuses for the inhabitants of those centuries between the end of the Empire and the beginning of enlightenment. Those who say it was a horrid book probably haven't looked at it objectively at all and are taking their own biased opinions from Arthurian legend and what their college class tells them. Most compelling is the true story of Robin Hood...he isn't Erol Flynn OR Kevin Coster...he's more of a thief than a noble. Don't but don't let me tell you the whole tale, go get a book and add it to your collection. It's a must read for anyone with a remote interest in the Middle Ages
Rating:
Summary: A book filled only with rubbish
Review: Manchester thinks he is insulting the Middle Ages with his title, but it takes just a second's reflection to remember that the world was lit only by fire until the nineteenth century. And it goes downhill from there. I don't have anything specific to add to others' comments on Manchester's pervasive lack of organization, accuracy, logic, and taste; I'll just say that I virtually never quit reading a book in disgust, but I made an exception in this case. I wish I could give it a negative number of stars.
Rating:
Summary: Manchester's Reign of Error
Review: Any work of history is bound to have a few errors of fact or interpretation, but "A World Lit Only By Fire" is riddled with astonishing inaccuracies. At one point, Manchester claims that Copernicus was burned at the stake by the Inquisition. In fact, Copernicus died of natural causes (cerebral haemorrhage) in 1543! Publication of his "Book of Revolutions" was actually encouraged by certain Church officials during his lifetime, and the book was not proscribed by the Church until 73 years after it was published. Perhaps Manchester was thinking of Giordano Bruno, or perhaps he was not thinking at all. Another example: His description of John Calvin's bloodthirsty doings relies on heavily biased secondary sources, many of which have been discredited by serious historians. There's no need to bring up further examples, since Manchester himself claims in his introduction that a historian who read the manuscript disagreed with statements on almost every page of this book. It seems safe to assume that Manchester's unwillingness to correct or qualify these statements was the result of his having an axe to grind. If you have even a glancing acquaintance with medieval history, you'll be shocked by Manchester's willful disregard for basic facts. If you're new to the subject and want a good introduction, try Barbara Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror" or Norman Cohn's "Pursuit of the Millennium."
Rating:
Summary: Manchester is unobjective and biased
Review: You know, I started this book with such high hopes. The narritive was so interesting, but as I progressed, I found the effectiveness of this book obscured by Manchester's prejudiced view of the Church and the people of the Middle Ages. I would strongly recommend checking this book out of the Library before buying it and checking the basic facts out against more reputable authors before accepting any of this man's book as factual or unslanted in the telling of this period of history.
|
