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....
Rating:
Summary: A classic exposure of nonsense and worse
Review: This book is worth having just for the chapter on Rousseau. Rousseau has got to be one of the most dubious figures in the whole Western tradition. But there is worse. Learn about it here: Rousseau refused to marry his mistress, even though they had four or five children together. Rousseau refused to RAISE those children: over his mistress's keen objections, he abandoned them all at the Foundling Hospital in Paris (where they surely died). And then he went out and wrote a book on how to raise children. Rousseau's entire life was this sort of dizzying, feverish, and insane posturing. The bits on Hemingway and Lillian Hellman are very good, and the chapter on the "gong-collector" Henrik Ibsen is great. Oh, and Karl Marx, too! The great socialist, who kept an unpaid servant all of his life.
Rating:
Summary: Paul Johnson exposes uncomfortable myths
Review: Mr. Johnson's book is an intelligible and entertaining read. His thesis is really to expose the hypocrisy of these major thinker's lives to much of their own ideas. Easy to love humanity, harder to love individual humans. Most failed miserably at the later. Much needed debunking for those enamored with the radicle left.
|
