Michael Lynch (1)

I hadn't thought it was possible for there to be a bad Oxford Companion.

That may not be fair. But this is an odd duck among the Oxford Companion series. Most of them are specialized dictionaries. The companion for British History, for instance, includes short biographies of major historical figures, brief accounts of major events, and special articles on subjects such as money, the church, and population patterns. For almost any historical topic, it gives you a place to start.

So imagine my show more shock when I went to look up the Battle of Prestonpans in the Companion to Scottish History, and it's not there. The articles go from "Population patterns" to "Printing and Publishing." Nor is it in the index -- and even if it were, the index isn't really an index! I didn't know it was possible to create an index that requires an instruction manual -- but this book manages it. The index doesn't tell you which page to seek things in; it tells you which articles to search.

If you want to just sit down and read the book, or already know which article to read, the quality is good. There is genuinely a lot of information here. But this simply is not a quick reference guide. It's more a book of essays. Be prepared.... show less

It was perhaps a mistake on my part to try and read this one all in one go, like it was a novel. A novel it most certainly isn’t and I can’t blame the author for that, it’s my mistake to think of it as such.

It’s clear, as the book develops, that it is intended as a work of reference and, whilst for me the beginning few sections at least, do seem to be intended to read like a sequential story, later sections are organised such that it becomes very difficult to read as if it was a show more historical novel.

I think the early pages covering Scotland’s earliest history, read like they do, in contrast to the rest, due to the lack of detailed information for him to show you he’s got a hold of.

My criticism of the book, if I can find one, is that Lynch does seem very keen to show us all the exhaustive research he’s done and then present us with all the exhausting information he possibly can. It seems sometimes, as if he wants to show us that’s it’s only he who can decide the meaning behind what happened. He’s clearly setting himself as the authority here. I’m maybe being too harsh, but sometimes it isn’t necessary to lay so much information down at one time. Not if you’re producing a one volume edition. The book could easily have gone over two or three volumes and not suffered. It would have been a bit more open and readable, in my humble opinion.

It actually made me think of the telephone book. Full of interesting, even vital information and an absolute triumph of collation of the information. But not something you’d want to wade through at one sitting.

As a work, fantastic. As a historical novel, not quite so. But that’s just me.

I haven't actually finished it. I can't at the moment. It's taking so long and I want to move on to others. show less

This is, despite its age, still the best single-volume history of Scotland available. It's criminal that it's not in print in the U.S.

Basic textbook designed for student use, with possible questions, writing assignments etc. Mostly an adequate outline of the facts, but some odd omissions --the map of of late 19th century South Africa includes the sites of the battles of Isandlwana and Majuba Hill, but does not explain what they were -- since the text is covering the Second Boer War at that point, the implication would be those battles were from that war instead of the Zulu War and First Boer War-- more oddly, the map show more includes no battles from the Second Boer War. show less