/lit/ - Literature

>>16505709
It's hit and miss, he's a bit of an unique writer in the canon. People like it or dislike it for different reasons, so not sure what to tell you really. He's definitely not a good writer in the literary sense, he's not the best historian by most standards, and the stuff he talks about is so diverse it may bore you to death or fascinate you depending what you're into. I liked the book because it helped me a lot in understanding the Greeks, but not really due to his explanations, but rather my own interpretations of what he was talking about. I think the most objective and universal positive feature of the book is that he is indeed "the father of history" so a lot of the things that we know about major events like the Thermopylae battle, the Marathon battle, the expansion of the Persian empire, etc. are really from him, so you may get to understand the study of history better. He's also a bit bizarre in terms of where his bias lies when it comes to the Hellenes, which can make you think a lot about historiography / philosophy of history. Personally, I thought it was a great book, but I wouldn't really recommend it to any of my friends just because it's so peculiar (and long: 300,000 words). But of course if you are serious about reading beyond a fun hobby, then it's obviously a must read regardless of how much you may or may not enjoy it because it's monumentally important.