Rating: 
Summary: Really important, but really poorly written
Review: This is one of the modern classics on nationalism, and should be required reading for anyone interested in politics, culture (since issues of nationalism permeates absolutely everything).As important as this book is, don't expect a fun read. It is very badly written and can be tedious to read. More and more, I am convinced that many academics, especially those that have been touched in anyway by continental thought, are not merely not taught to write well, but are actually taught to write badly. Schopenhauer was perhaps the first to see what was going wrong. Although he considered himself a Kantian, he felt that Kant had had a horrible impact on philosophical writing. He recommended taking David Hume, who was a very clear writer, as the model instead of Kant. Unfortunately, too many German and French writers seem dedicated to immulating Kant rather than Hume, and write impenetrably as a result.
Rating: 
Summary: A Confusing Mess
Review: While Mr. Anderson puts forth provoking theories about the rise and nature of nationalism, his style is very confusing and his examples equally as convoluted. This book could easily have been condensed into an 8 page essay and would have been far more coherent.
| 
