Rating: 
Summary: misfortune to see it
Review: This the worst physics book that I've ever studied. The book made me so confused that I got lost even in the most basic concepts.
It's hard to see why this book is so popular in the introductory level solid state courses. I began to learn the basic concepts of the solid state physics after I'd begun studying from other introductory level solid state books, such as Ashcroft-Mermin.
Rating: 
Summary: A pretty average undergraduate solid-state text.
Review: Topics in the book are somewhat disjointed. This is probably a result of the author inserting new topics in each successive edition without really trying to integrate them into the text. Problems at the end of each chapter are not very illuminating. Can someone suggest a better "modern" text which covers recent developments such as scanning tunneling microscopy and semiconductor lasers?
Rating:
Summary: Learn your solid state physics from another book.
Review: Wanting to brush up on magnetism recently, I consulted my 6th edition of Kittel, and quickly remembered why I hated this book so much. It was used in a senior undergraduate physics course that I took as a graduate student in solid state chemistry. As an instructor myself now, I simply cannot tolerate textbook authors who are incapable of writing pedagogically.
What is wrong with Kittel?
1. The prose does not flow and is so terse that the need to read between the lines translates to reading another book altogether.
2. Topics are not properly introduced or motivated, and equations are often produced without defining symbols and without careful physical interpretation.
3. And yet some incredibly banal statements are made. In the section on magnetism of rare-earth ions, Kittel mentions that radii decrease on going across the f-elements, and then says, "This is the 'famous' lanthanide contraction." There is nothing particularly famous about this trend; in general, on going from left to right across any row of the periodic table, the radii decrease. I also doubt that a typical physics major would have taken an inorganic chemistry course to have been aware of this 'famous' observation. He then concludes (I'm paraphrasing), "thus,... (the lanthanides) are the most interesting elements in the periodic table." What a laughably ignorant comment. Our own research focuses on rare-earth elements, and they are interesting in their own right, but I would hardly make such a foolhardy claim in front of other chemists.
Kittel has some good reference tables which I consult from time to time, but if you want to learn solid state physics, there are other superior texts in the market. Just a couple of alternatives: Rosenberg's little paperback is a delight to read because it focuses on physical interpretation rather than getting bogged down on the mathematics. The standard graduate solid state physics text should be Ashcroft and Mermin, which is also a pleasure to read, but assumes a strong mathematical grounding.
Textbooks tend to diminish in readability with further editions, and I would extrapolate that the 7th edition would not be any better than the preceding one. But to give Kittel some credit, his solid state book is at one notch better (hence the rating of 2) than his statistical thermodynamics book, "Thermal Physics". That last one is even worse.
Rating: 
Summary: Superb.
Review: While at first glance the book can seem daunting, it is an absolute must read for anyone pursuing serious study in solid state physics or materials science. It literally has something on everything. From basic structure to superconductors to semiconductors to magnetics, it's all there. Of all the texts I've ever read, this is the one I return to the most when I'm confused about something, be it advanced or fundamental. It truly is the seminal work in the field.
| 
