Would round up to a solid 3.5
I'm a longstanding fan of the Introducing [....] Graphic Guide books, and this one didn't disappoint. I cannot comment on the veracity of Spencer's depiction of Hegel with any authority, but I enjoyed the mixture of conceptual outlines and historical details. While some have commented that they found the biographical interludes in the story to be a distraction, I often found them to be a welcome break from some of the headier moments of expounding on Hegel's work.
Graphic Guide books are never perfect, and as many often remark, their illustrations are generally more decorative than they are substantive. That said, I found the frequent use of helix and swirling ammonite shells helpful to pull me into a more concrete understanding of the concepts - even as Hegel himself seemingly would have loathed such image-centric allegories.
My standard critiques of Graphic Guides unfortunately still stand for this work: the illustrations do not always match the content, and often formatting is hard to follow. There were multiple times I had to double-check I was reading a quote and not an insertion from the authors - there are still one or two places where I cannot get a full sense of who said what. In other cases, they move on too quickly from a given topic, and do not play the ideas out as fully as they could.
Overall, I thought Spencer and Krauze did their best, and mostly did a titanic figure in the field justice. Because of the book's age, its touchpoints to feminist and decolonial philosophy are, as I would have expected, vanishingly sparse. The Marxian commitment to the Hegelian project is noted towards the latter third of the book, but it utterly fails to reach into other pockets of work, such as Franz Fanon's active engagement with the master/slave dialectic. The baseline of outlining Hegel's work is retained and remains useful, but it misses the broader opportunity (even in 1996!) to showcase the full breadth of the impact of his work.
I left the book considering the nature of teleology and the possibility of cyclicality in his work. As a (Post?)post-Modern, used to the 'death of the author' and Grand Narratives and all the rest, I have an immediate, allergic reaction to what is presented (or at least felt like) the inevitability of the Geist achieving self-awareness and self-consciousness. The Fukayama reference at the very end (eery, given how I had to study it somewhat sardonically when I first went to school) puts this is even more stark relief from the vantage point of 2023, with the deep fissures of the liberal democratic order entirely visible. There is much more reading for me to do now, but particularly with regards to his grammatological approach to art, religion, nature, and philosophy itself, I am left with the sense that a cyclical sense of each of these processes and fields, rather than a dialectically linear one, has tremendous epistemic fruitfulness. I'm sure someone else smarter than me has already thought of that, though, so, I will try to find them.