What do you think?
Rate this book
Intellectuals by Johnson, Paul (1989) Hardcover
- GenresHistory
Unknown Binding
9 people are currently reading
75 people want to read
About the author
Paul Johnson
134 books837 followersPaul Johnson works as a historian, journalist and author. He was educated at Stonyhurst School in Clitheroe, Lancashire and Magdalen College, Oxford, and first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine. He has also written for leading newspapers and magazines in Britain, the US and Europe.
Paul Johnson has published over 40 books including A History of Christianity (1979), A History of the English People (1987), Intellectuals (1988), The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815—1830 (1991), Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000 (1999), A History of the American People (2000), A History of the Jews (2001) and Art: A New History (2003) as well as biographies of Elizabeth I (1974), Napoleon (2002), George Washington (2005) and Pope John Paul II (1982).
Paul Johnson has published over 40 books including A History of Christianity (1979), A History of the English People (1987), Intellectuals (1988), The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815—1830 (1991), Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000 (1999), A History of the American People (2000), A History of the Jews (2001) and Art: A New History (2003) as well as biographies of Elizabeth I (1974), Napoleon (2002), George Washington (2005) and Pope John Paul II (1982).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 15, 2025
Beware of Intellectuals Bearing Gifts- OR Smart People Behaving Badly.
At its core, this book makes the case that anyone who puts grand ideas about a "love of humanity" (and their ideas to reform humanity) above actual humans is actually no friend of society. Each of the titular intellectuals (Roussea, Shelley, Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemmingway, Brecht, Bertrand Russel, Sartre, etc.) get a dressing down of their personal lives: financial, filial, marital, sexual. At various points, it felt a little like drudgery going through the dirty laundry of these people, and at those moments I wished the author had a more constructive message on top of his (needful) warning. Some would call each chapter nothing more than a string of ad hominem attacks-- but most of the time Johnson makes a strong case for how their personal failings either directly contradict the things they preached OR were examples of the fruits of their ideas playing out in real life. I think he comes pretty close to making an empirical definition of what makes the progressive mind tick (basically, a destruction of flawed existing systems in favor of something that is more permissive for their personal favorite vices).
I would say that Johnson seemed to take a bit too prurient an interest in the sex-lives of the people he was discussing. Some of the things he divulges are necessary to make his point, but some felt like reading the tabloids. I see on his wikipedia page that despite all of his mudslinging against philanderers and fornicators, he, alas, would not be able to cast the first stone. That may explain his fixation on that specific element of the intellectuals failing.
Really great book. Bit of a slog in parts, but worth trudging through. Honestly feels incredibly relevant to the current defenestration of "experts" in American society.
At its core, this book makes the case that anyone who puts grand ideas about a "love of humanity" (and their ideas to reform humanity) above actual humans is actually no friend of society. Each of the titular intellectuals (Roussea, Shelley, Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemmingway, Brecht, Bertrand Russel, Sartre, etc.) get a dressing down of their personal lives: financial, filial, marital, sexual. At various points, it felt a little like drudgery going through the dirty laundry of these people, and at those moments I wished the author had a more constructive message on top of his (needful) warning. Some would call each chapter nothing more than a string of ad hominem attacks-- but most of the time Johnson makes a strong case for how their personal failings either directly contradict the things they preached OR were examples of the fruits of their ideas playing out in real life. I think he comes pretty close to making an empirical definition of what makes the progressive mind tick (basically, a destruction of flawed existing systems in favor of something that is more permissive for their personal favorite vices).
I would say that Johnson seemed to take a bit too prurient an interest in the sex-lives of the people he was discussing. Some of the things he divulges are necessary to make his point, but some felt like reading the tabloids. I see on his wikipedia page that despite all of his mudslinging against philanderers and fornicators, he, alas, would not be able to cast the first stone. That may explain his fixation on that specific element of the intellectuals failing.
Really great book. Bit of a slog in parts, but worth trudging through. Honestly feels incredibly relevant to the current defenestration of "experts" in American society.
December 5, 2023
Greatly underappreciated and lacking in deserved popularity, this remarkable collection of biographies poignantly highlights peculiar commonalities many of the most revered Intellectuals shared in their lives and convictions. This is a surprisingly coherent story of lies, hatred, violence, hypocrisy, indolence, deviance and adultery.
I highly recommend this book as an antidote or precautionary measure against falling victim to the ideas "thinkers" like Marx, Rousseau, Satre, Brecht or Tolstoy espoused. Keeping in mind how they utterly failed in almost all aspects of their lives both adhering to and hypocritically deviating from their principles is advisable when learning about them in a mostly positive light in intellectual circles like at university.
I highly recommend this book as an antidote or precautionary measure against falling victim to the ideas "thinkers" like Marx, Rousseau, Satre, Brecht or Tolstoy espoused. Keeping in mind how they utterly failed in almost all aspects of their lives both adhering to and hypocritically deviating from their principles is advisable when learning about them in a mostly positive light in intellectual circles like at university.
July 3, 2025
Intellectuals by Paul Johnson
This is an excellent book.
It is upsetting and it might affect the reader, so a cautionary or warning sign might be in order on the cover somewhere. Like the adult or Paternal Guidance ratings for some films, one such sign would be advisable.
And why is that?
After you read this book, you will not feel the same about Tolstoy, Hemingway, Shelley…a young adult might feel inclined to avoid their books altogether.
Again; this is a great book, even if it has over four hundred pages, I have read all of it, with the exception of the chapters on Marx and Sartre. I hate Marxists anyway, so what would be the point of learning what loathing characters these two had. In fact, because the book is so good and paints such an accurate picture of these intellectuals, I leafed through the pages on Marx and Sartre.
And I had the confirmation that these two were devious and monsters. In the case of Sartre, a rather short demon.
Do we need to learn about what is behind a great book? Shouldn’t be satisfied with astonishing literature? Why must we know that Hemingway was a liar, drunkard, smelled awful, was abusive to his wives and others, quarreled with other writers for no good reason- with dos Passos , Hemingway was plainly in the wrong. He diminished and insulted Scott F. Fitzgerald, by saying that he called him into the bathroom to show his penis.
Most of these Intellectuals had children that they abandoned. In the case of Jean Jacques Rousseau, we are talking about many children, basically left to die. In those days, to take a baby to the door of an orphanage and leave it there meant to sentence him to near certain death.
In fact the cruelty, meanness of most of those presented here is incredible.
You would be tempted to say that, in order to describe the complete range of human emotions, great authors need to plunge into the abyss.
Still, it doesn’t make them any less charming, if we find reasons for debauchery and the vilest behavior. In two cases, Marx and Sartre I kind of expected the worse, even if there’s always room for surprises: like the fact that Sartre, even after he learned many of the real facts about his Soviet friends- maintained that “the Soviet citizens are allowed to travel, but they just do not have any desire to do so”.
And then the drugs, the addictions of so many of these “role models” (?). In some cases, alcohol abuse was a way out of sickness. Hemingway suffered from depression, which probably pushed him to commit suicide, and forced him to drink often. But the scale of the excess is formidable: he drank enormous quantities of alcohol- whisky, wine, vodka…he even invented some “Papa drinks”.
His relationship with his mother, most of his wives and a number of mistresses was terrible. One aspect of his life that I find repulsive was his despicable compulsion to kill any number of animals- from pigeons to lions and anything that walked the earth basically. He did have a huge number of cats, associated with a repulsive smell around the house. Stray cats from my neighborhood came to my house and I know what Hemingway’s third (?) wife was complaining about.
The biggest disappointment though was Tolstoy. I had the impression, based on his masterpieces that the count was a kind of prophet. It turns out this is the way he saw himself at times, but I learned from this book that he had such a dark side that I am happy to have read twice War and Peace, Anna Karenina, The Death of Ivan Ilici and many of his stories. After reading about Tolstoy and the others presented in this fabulous book, I would have qualms about reading their (still great) creations and not think how unbearably vicious, mean, vile and contemptible they all acted, for incredibly long periods of time and with so many people.
This is an excellent book.
It is upsetting and it might affect the reader, so a cautionary or warning sign might be in order on the cover somewhere. Like the adult or Paternal Guidance ratings for some films, one such sign would be advisable.
And why is that?
After you read this book, you will not feel the same about Tolstoy, Hemingway, Shelley…a young adult might feel inclined to avoid their books altogether.
Again; this is a great book, even if it has over four hundred pages, I have read all of it, with the exception of the chapters on Marx and Sartre. I hate Marxists anyway, so what would be the point of learning what loathing characters these two had. In fact, because the book is so good and paints such an accurate picture of these intellectuals, I leafed through the pages on Marx and Sartre.
And I had the confirmation that these two were devious and monsters. In the case of Sartre, a rather short demon.
Do we need to learn about what is behind a great book? Shouldn’t be satisfied with astonishing literature? Why must we know that Hemingway was a liar, drunkard, smelled awful, was abusive to his wives and others, quarreled with other writers for no good reason- with dos Passos , Hemingway was plainly in the wrong. He diminished and insulted Scott F. Fitzgerald, by saying that he called him into the bathroom to show his penis.
Most of these Intellectuals had children that they abandoned. In the case of Jean Jacques Rousseau, we are talking about many children, basically left to die. In those days, to take a baby to the door of an orphanage and leave it there meant to sentence him to near certain death.
In fact the cruelty, meanness of most of those presented here is incredible.
You would be tempted to say that, in order to describe the complete range of human emotions, great authors need to plunge into the abyss.
Still, it doesn’t make them any less charming, if we find reasons for debauchery and the vilest behavior. In two cases, Marx and Sartre I kind of expected the worse, even if there’s always room for surprises: like the fact that Sartre, even after he learned many of the real facts about his Soviet friends- maintained that “the Soviet citizens are allowed to travel, but they just do not have any desire to do so”.
And then the drugs, the addictions of so many of these “role models” (?). In some cases, alcohol abuse was a way out of sickness. Hemingway suffered from depression, which probably pushed him to commit suicide, and forced him to drink often. But the scale of the excess is formidable: he drank enormous quantities of alcohol- whisky, wine, vodka…he even invented some “Papa drinks”.
His relationship with his mother, most of his wives and a number of mistresses was terrible. One aspect of his life that I find repulsive was his despicable compulsion to kill any number of animals- from pigeons to lions and anything that walked the earth basically. He did have a huge number of cats, associated with a repulsive smell around the house. Stray cats from my neighborhood came to my house and I know what Hemingway’s third (?) wife was complaining about.
The biggest disappointment though was Tolstoy. I had the impression, based on his masterpieces that the count was a kind of prophet. It turns out this is the way he saw himself at times, but I learned from this book that he had such a dark side that I am happy to have read twice War and Peace, Anna Karenina, The Death of Ivan Ilici and many of his stories. After reading about Tolstoy and the others presented in this fabulous book, I would have qualms about reading their (still great) creations and not think how unbearably vicious, mean, vile and contemptible they all acted, for incredibly long periods of time and with so many people.
October 22, 2023
A dozen people picked at random on the street are at least as likely to offer sensible views on moral and political matters as a cross-section of the intelligentsia. But I would go further. One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is – – beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice. Beware committees, conferences and leagues of intellectuals. Distrust public statements issued from their serried ranks. Discount their verdicts on political leaders and important events. For intellectuals, far from being highly individualistic and non-conformist people, follow certain regular patterns of behavior. Taking as a group, they are often ultra conformist within the circles formed by those whose approval they seek and value.
The quote above is on the last page of the author’s book and is his conclusion based on his review of the lives of many people that could be classified as "Intellectuals." Those coming under his inspections include Rousseau, Bertrand Russell, Lillian Hellman, Sartre, Ernest Hemingway, Norman Mailer and others. He finds them wanting and points out their particular foibles, weaknesses and sins. Some were actually not so smart at all or what they were reputedly to be. Many were not very good human beings treating the public, friends and family members poorly. Many were inconsistent in their political and philosophical views and proven to be wrong in their opinions. Rousseau, Russell, Hemingway and Mailer were womanizers and treated their wives shabbily. Being a great writer does not translate into being good with money, family life, healthy habits and smart living.
Johnson’s point is that these people may not deserve the pedestal that history or conventional thinking has placed them. They may not be as smart or as notable as they may consider themselves.
Interesting perspectives on interesting people…reads like a National Enquirer expose on the intelligentsia.
The quote above is on the last page of the author’s book and is his conclusion based on his review of the lives of many people that could be classified as "Intellectuals." Those coming under his inspections include Rousseau, Bertrand Russell, Lillian Hellman, Sartre, Ernest Hemingway, Norman Mailer and others. He finds them wanting and points out their particular foibles, weaknesses and sins. Some were actually not so smart at all or what they were reputedly to be. Many were not very good human beings treating the public, friends and family members poorly. Many were inconsistent in their political and philosophical views and proven to be wrong in their opinions. Rousseau, Russell, Hemingway and Mailer were womanizers and treated their wives shabbily. Being a great writer does not translate into being good with money, family life, healthy habits and smart living.
Johnson’s point is that these people may not deserve the pedestal that history or conventional thinking has placed them. They may not be as smart or as notable as they may consider themselves.
Interesting perspectives on interesting people…reads like a National Enquirer expose on the intelligentsia.
January 12, 2025
Tabloid Journalism and Philosophically Insulting
The highly reductive approach taken by Paul Johnson is philosophically insulting to anyone with an exposure to philosophical reflection or thinking. This book may work for the philosophically naïve, red meat so to speak for the uninitiated and the conspiracy-minded to gobble up, but it is not a contribution to philosophical discourse. This book is the tabloid journalism of philosophy. It may make for high book sales, but it is far too narrow in approach to be of any real or lasting value.
There is of course selection bias in terms of who is selected and found fit for what we are to believe is the opprobrium of intellectual. I do not care for the manner in which the label intellectual is used as a pejorative for those with whom Mr. Johnson finds himself at variance. Is he not also an intellectual? It is the anti-intellectualism that this attitude engenders in the public consciousness, in the Zeitgeist if I may be so audacious to put it that way, that I find to be the most pernicious quality of this book.
The book makes a classical logical error in considering each thinker from only one perspective. Lack of perspective is another failing of the book. Mr. Johnson would have us believe that each of his targets is as one-sided, narrow, shallow and superficial as his presentations of them. It is not the people profiled in this book that are narrow, vain, superficial and shallow, it is the highly reductionist sketches written about them that fill this description.
Mr. Johnson’s perspective is so shallow and superficial that deeper understanding is actually distorted. We should endeavor to gain a perspective of philosophical thinkers, and yes, dare I say it, of intellectuals, as well as of our own interlocutors beyond a hyperbolic discussion of their flaws which is only banal and derivative. In this case, it makes it difficult to conceive of the people profiled in this book as real people; perhaps that was Mr. Johnson’s intent.
The highly reductive approach taken by Paul Johnson is philosophically insulting to anyone with an exposure to philosophical reflection or thinking. This book may work for the philosophically naïve, red meat so to speak for the uninitiated and the conspiracy-minded to gobble up, but it is not a contribution to philosophical discourse. This book is the tabloid journalism of philosophy. It may make for high book sales, but it is far too narrow in approach to be of any real or lasting value.
There is of course selection bias in terms of who is selected and found fit for what we are to believe is the opprobrium of intellectual. I do not care for the manner in which the label intellectual is used as a pejorative for those with whom Mr. Johnson finds himself at variance. Is he not also an intellectual? It is the anti-intellectualism that this attitude engenders in the public consciousness, in the Zeitgeist if I may be so audacious to put it that way, that I find to be the most pernicious quality of this book.
The book makes a classical logical error in considering each thinker from only one perspective. Lack of perspective is another failing of the book. Mr. Johnson would have us believe that each of his targets is as one-sided, narrow, shallow and superficial as his presentations of them. It is not the people profiled in this book that are narrow, vain, superficial and shallow, it is the highly reductionist sketches written about them that fill this description.
Mr. Johnson’s perspective is so shallow and superficial that deeper understanding is actually distorted. We should endeavor to gain a perspective of philosophical thinkers, and yes, dare I say it, of intellectuals, as well as of our own interlocutors beyond a hyperbolic discussion of their flaws which is only banal and derivative. In this case, it makes it difficult to conceive of the people profiled in this book as real people; perhaps that was Mr. Johnson’s intent.
January 1, 2026
Paul Johnson is one of my favorite authors, and this is another good book from him. It's definitely not a top 3, but it's still a good one. The book offers critical reflections on intellectuals that society generally follows as guides in knowledge and morals, but in truth, they are weak and confused men. The book goes too far into their lives and not enough into their malicious legacies. Therefore, the book is only good, not great.
December 9, 2025
A collection of biographies of the influential intellectuals in the last few centuries revealing the background of their works and their personal characters. These biographies reexamined the authority of these intellectuals lecturing on humanity with unusual confidence.
August 15, 2025
A gossipy biography on great intellectuals. I don't agree with alot of Johnsons opinions on how they lived their lives but it is a fun read.
reading-now
January 18, 2026Luzerne-Cloud Library
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews