Rating: 
Summary: A scathing look at those would tell us how to live
Review: This book is an entertaining and scathing attack on a group of popular left-leaning intellectuals who are often trotted out by some liberals again and again as symbols of the highest in human thought and deed (Rousseau, Marx, Russell etc.). Johnson pays them their due: Hemingway IS a great writer; Ibsen IS a great playwright, etc. However, Johnson cautions that talent (especially the ability write well, as many of those he profiles are authors) should not be equated with moral, spiritual, or even intellectual superiority. His point is simply that these people, though they could articulate their ideas well, often lived miserable lives, mistreated others, and/or ignored their own philosophies. Admittedly, these acts of hypocrisy are hardly confined to those philosophers and artists on the left, but it is the intellectuals described in this book that are the ones who are so often used to refute conservatives, especially when those on the right are being accused of being narrow minded, heartless, and moralistic. How many Christians have been told by their non- (or better anti-) religious friends to read Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian" or told that, as attributed to Marx, "Religion is the opiate of the Masses", when the discussion turns to matters of faith? Johnson demonstrates that these liberal intellectuals and/or their followers were (and are), for all intents and purposes, doing what moral conservatives are often accused of doing, trying to change the world by imposing, through their exalted position as intellectual elites, their morality and philosophies on others. (Marxism and humanism are two notable examples.) Ultimately, Johnson asserts that these people were no more or less qualified than any other sensible, intelligent person to tell people how to live their lives (maybe even less so because they were often out of touch with the lives of ordinary people).Of course, the same could be said of intellectuals on the right, but, as Johnson tends to be conservative, it's the liberal elite who gets skewered. It's about time!
Rating: 
Summary: Dishonest. And hypocritical.
Review: Knowing something of Shelley, I can say that Johnson's Shelley chapter is valueless as history or biography. Shelley was not faultness, but he was rather admirable, sensitive, generous and kind man, who was loved by people around him, and who had a tragic life. Having read the Holmes biography I can see the distortions and the omissions in Johnson's use of his source. (For example Shelley took his family to Wales after a man was imprisoned for distributing one of Shelley's poems, which Johnson reports. But Johnson does not mention another fact from Holmes: that Shelley sent regular payments, that he could ill afford, to sustain the man throughout his imprisonment, because Johnson wants us to think that that Shelley abandoned the man. But there are many other examples of similar distortions: Johnson's "errors" about Elizabeth Hitchener, the end of his first marriage, the death of his daughter Clara and many other things.My judgement is that the errors and ommisions can only be the result of Johnson's preparedness to ignore or conceal the truth when the truth doesn't fit the picture he wants to paint. Johnson _may_ also have referred to the FL Jones Oxford edition of Shelley's letters, but Holmes is very obviously the primary source. A friend who has met Holmes reports that Holmes was quite scathing about Johnson's misuse of his book. I don't know all that much about the other figures in "Intellectuals", but if a man tries to mislead me about something I do know about, then I tend to doubt what he says about things I don't. "Dishonesty" and "vindictiveness" are what I condemn about the one chapter of Johnson's book I'm competent to judge. Given that chapter, I wouldn't cite "Intellectuals" as an authority on any matter of fact. Wheels
Rating: 
Summary: Important Yet Damaged By A Trite Journalistic Technique
Review: Johnson never quite defines what just exactly an intellectual is, and then seem sto concede that "íntellectuals" are only to be found on the left, and on the mendacious left at that. This only supports Johnson's critics, who claim that he, like all conservative writers, are "pseudo- intellectuals": Johnson plays in to that! Also, his choice of personas he left out is as important as those he writes on. He should qualify and contextualize his theories and definitions. His little snap at James Baldwin is based on ignorance as an Englishman about the American tragedy of race relations (due to history--like everything else). Yet he skipped the likes of Orwell and Camus because these were honest men, yet they were neither left nor right. He cannot attack them yet cannot praise them (since they aren't in his political camp). His journalistic style of sources is weak; I'd like to see a wider variety of bibliographical sources. Nevertheless, by picking up even the most mainstream bibligraphies of these people, he finds nasty things that contradict their alleged fundamental social and political principles (personal "morals" are something the typical leftist ignores, being solipistic on that point), and ruins their popular image. If its that easy to pop their famous bubbles, you can imagine what kind of leftist propoganda machines have kept their revered legacies alive so many years! Johnson's strength is is take-no-prisoners, unapologetic, unqualified statements about these people (no doubt from his journalist experience), and these people need taking down, believe me! In our own century, the crime of the privileged, wealthy, intellectuals in safe cocoons babbling about the "workers" of which they knew nothing, and supporting Stalin and his actions despite all contrary evidence, is disgusting; the American Left forever stained itself on this issue. Lillian Hellman et.al., depicted themselves as such tortured, suffering martyrs--the effete, over-educated (waste of time!), over-protected northeastern elite! phooeey!! I'm sick of the McCarthy "witch trials" being trundled out every time a leftist movie star or "íntellectual" wants to feel like an important suffering martyr. A&E is, in fact, putting on a movie with Sam Shepard (could have been Alec Baldwin but he's such a cheesy actor!) and Judy Davis this month as Dashiel Hammet and Lillian Hellman (both with impecable "leftist" artistic credentials--probably neither of them know anything about Hellman other than what her estate people want them to know); it seem to be a "Reds" meets "Leaving Las Vegas" sort of thing; an "alcoholic love story"--how romantically tragic and full of pathos! No doubt it will be a typical piece of hagiographical trash. I don't agree with all of Johnson's assessments or his methods, but the crybabies and whiners who entirely dismiss his attacks know he has hit far to close to home. Even the best arguments of Christopher Lasch wouldn't be good enough for these people. The ENTIRE truth really does hurt . . .
Rating: 
Summary: repudiation of independent thought by a devout catholic
Review: Throughout all the reviews of this book,no one has mentioned the most salient motivating factor of Johnson;his devout catholic faith!He openly admits to finding the replacement of ecclesiastically dominated philosophies with 'rationalism' to be morally abhorrent.Thus we come to the nub of this and indeed all his works;man cannot replace god.That his attacks on bizarrely selected 'intellectuals' are vindictively selective ,unempirical,and ultimately ,of course the work of an intellectual(who himself has recently been shown to be an adulterer,despite fequently railing against infidelity)attempting to use rationalism, rather perversely both nullifies his work,and vindicates it.Thank god for the reformation of the church!
Rating:
Summary: Gossipy, entertaining and informative
Review: This book is an eye-opener, although I doubt it should have been called "Intellectuals." Many of the subjects aren't. Hemingway sure wasn't, and comes across as more sad and pitiful than anything else. Still, Johnson points out how uniformly leftists expect themselves to be exempted from the rules they would impose on everyone else. I was surprised to find out how vile some of these people were--but, as the old saying goes, bad trees produce bad fruit.
Rating:
Summary: ad hominem, sure
Review: In my humble opinion, when discussing politics or ideology, ad hominem is the way to go. Ideas are never the real issue there, even when they appear to be. This is a great book, and acknowledges this fact. I give it five stars.
Rating:
Summary: insightful biographies of various leading "intellectuals"
Review: Buy this book and place it next to the works of Rosseau and Nitzsche. It will drive the spirits of nonsense away!
Rating:
Summary: THOUGHT PROVOKING MEANT AND ACHIEVED
Review: I HAVE HEARD AND READ ABOUT THIS BOOK YEARS BEFORE ACTUALLY SITTING DOWN TO COMMENCE A PERIOD OF HARD, INSPIRED AND REWARDING THINKING! EVEN THE MOST CASUAL READER WILL FIND AT LEAST ONE OF HIS IDOLS PUT TO A HARD TEST OF HAVING TO RECONVINCE HIM THAT HIS IDEAS, ONCE TAKEN BY THAT READER AS A YOUTH AXIOM, PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT, ARE STILL AS VALID, AS TRUTHFUL, AS INFLUENCING THE READER'S LIFE AS A MINUTE BEFORE READING PAUL JOHNSON'S CRITIC. IRONICALLY, SAME THINKING PROCESS LEADS ONE TO EXAMINE VERY CLOSELY JOHNSON'S ANALYSIS ITSELF, AND HOW MANY BOOKS CAN ONE CREDIT FOR PRODDING AN INSTANT THOUGHTS' PROCESS AND INVOKING THE ENJOYMENT OF SELF-REASSESMENT OF OLD AND TAKEN FOR GRANTED NOTIONS AND LIFE STYLES?
Rating:
Summary: an easily read book on a weighty subject
Review: It is a real pleasure to have read with ease a book which, by its title, might scare the average reader. The subject of the book is an overview of the lives of those who are regarded by history and most educators as "Intellectuals". What is shown by way of biographical life review is how these people ending up misguided, pathetic and miserable characters one and all. Not examples to follow or seers to believe in, but the opposite; examples of how even bright people can be terribly wrong, make great mistakes, think themselves infallable, treat loved ones with distain, live lives of shame and cause real and lasting harms. This is very powerful information that I think should be taught to students of history, politics, or literature. Two passages from the book struck me especially hard. One a quote from Yeats defining Civilization as "the exercise of self-restraint" and the other a quote from Shakespeare commenting on a wasted life as "the expense of spirit in a waste of shame". This has been one of the better books I have read. Don't miss it.
Rating:
Summary: Don't you people understand?
Review: Ok ok, some of the criticisms other readers have made of this book are valid, particularly why Johnson chose some intellectuals rather than others. But having said, that, you must understand that Johnson is engaging in more than a mindless ad hominem attack. He has a two-pronged strategy, one hidden, the other ingeniously hidden. Johnson's first prong is an extension of the ad hominem attack, which can be summed up with the idea that "If they truly believed what they were saying, why didn't they live it?" The reason Johnson gives, sotto voce, is that the intellectuals knew their ideas were bunk or unattainable when they created them. I believe the second prong of this book, which is one I wholeheartedly embrace, is to attack the intellectual left with the same personal ferocity that the same has done to the establishment. Should the left-wing whining crybaby intellectuals be *exempt* from the same illogical aggression that they dish out? Of course not. One more point. In the Marx section, Johnson does a decent job in a few pages of undermining the empircal basis of Das Capital. Of course we know from the historical record that Marx's theories are crap; Johnson just shows us why they were crap from the very beginning. But Johnson is engaging in more....
|
