What do you think?
Rate this book
Myths of Geography: Eight Ways We Get the World Wrong
Not so long ago, dragons and monsters stalked our maps. Today, such maps might appear as fantastical fictional embellishments. But what if our world is shaped just as much by geographic myths as it once was? Paul Richardson challenges popular accounts of geographical determinism and shows how we perceive the world isn't how it really is - that the map is indeed not the territory. Eight punchy, authoritative chapters puncture long-held assumptions. 1. The Myth of the Continents and why they don't add up2. The Myth of the Border and why walls like Trump's don't work.3. The Myth of the Nation and fuzzy boundaries. 4. The Myth of Sovereignty and Taking Back Control5. The Myth of Economic Growth and Why It's Not Worth Dying for6. The Myth of Russia's inevitable expansionism 7. The Myth of China's New Silk Road8. The Myth of a doomed AfricaSurprising facts included in Myths of Geography-Bir Tawil in North Africa is the only inhabited territory in the world not claimed by any country -At Iceland's Thingvellir National Park you can swim between two North America and Europe-Vladimir Putin was once ready to give up Russian territory in exchange for peace- The Ethiopian city of Gonder was known as the Camelot of Africa - until the British looted it in 1868- In 2017, China set up the first direct freight train from Yiwu in eastern China, to Barking, east LondonWritten with verve and full of quotable facts Myths of Geography is a book that will literally turn your world upside down.
304 pages, Paperback
First published October 24, 2024
77 people are currently reading
1114 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews
May 5, 2025
The Myths of Geography is a fascinating read- it's a book that will certainly make you reconsider the so-called facts that are dealt to us in an all consuming world of economics, politics and greed.
This is in many senses 'a-call-to-arms' to take up the challenge to abandon the current geographical myths that we are supposed to live 'and die by' but which are very much not suited to the world we are and the changes ahead.
Exploring what we perceive as continents; the impact of supposed borders- politically and historically created; what do we actually mean by sovereignty; the negative influence of defining success by GDP; the belief of Russian expansion and the New Silk Road and the continual ' white centric' that Africa can never succeed- we are asked to confront stereotypes, the impact of empires and colonialism and history created from a European white male perspectives.
Paul Richardson provides necessary alternatives to stop us being led by preconceived myths about the world we live in. This is a book that will make you want to share what you read with others and will hopefully tilt your thinking in new directions. Economists and many rightwing thinkers will not necessarily agree with the eight essays ( money and greed is always in denial) but this is a great read that combines geography, history and exploration of the state of the world we are in and provides alternative perspectives
This is a book worthy of attention - anything that makes us reflect /question can never be a bad thing- highly recommended
This is in many senses 'a-call-to-arms' to take up the challenge to abandon the current geographical myths that we are supposed to live 'and die by' but which are very much not suited to the world we are and the changes ahead.
Exploring what we perceive as continents; the impact of supposed borders- politically and historically created; what do we actually mean by sovereignty; the negative influence of defining success by GDP; the belief of Russian expansion and the New Silk Road and the continual ' white centric' that Africa can never succeed- we are asked to confront stereotypes, the impact of empires and colonialism and history created from a European white male perspectives.
Paul Richardson provides necessary alternatives to stop us being led by preconceived myths about the world we live in. This is a book that will make you want to share what you read with others and will hopefully tilt your thinking in new directions. Economists and many rightwing thinkers will not necessarily agree with the eight essays ( money and greed is always in denial) but this is a great read that combines geography, history and exploration of the state of the world we are in and provides alternative perspectives
This is a book worthy of attention - anything that makes us reflect /question can never be a bad thing- highly recommended
August 6, 2024
This book started out really strong with a fascinating chapter on continents and what defines them (or doesn't). I also found its chapters on walls, nationhood, and sovereignty to be fairly interesting. However, the book becomes somewhat less accessible in later chapters. Some of the "myths" that the author exposes are not concepts that are well-known to the general public, such as the New Silk Road, or Russia's reputed interest in warm-water ports. It's a bit hard to feel invested in the deeper story when one never even knew the surface-level story. Therefore, I would say the target audience for this book is split between the layperson and the current affairs expert... not exactly a natural mix.
Thanks to Netgalley and Hanover Square Press for this digital review copy.
Thanks to Netgalley and Hanover Square Press for this digital review copy.
October 29, 2024
A riposte to Tim Marshall's 'Prisoners of Geography' series, is what I was hoping this was, as suggested by the blurb: "Is geography really destiny?"
About two-thirds of the way through, there was an interesting chapter on Russia, and how Russia's search for a warm-water port has been wildly overstated (by Tim Marshall and Winston Churchill alike). Domestic politics and ideology are the driving force of Russian foreign policy, rather than anything that can be seen on the map.
But that's about it. Nothing else really makes any reference to 'geographic determinism', the belief that the geography of a state dictates what they do in international affairs. This flawed but fashionable view of politics is otherwise left intact.
Before that, are five chapters that say little that's original, and lack any sort of coherent message. We read that borders and nations are made up, and various iterations of 'walls don't work, Trump'. Sovereignty is a myth, also, despite the various Boris Johnson quotes he's used, presumably to display Brexit charitably. Most frustrating, was a detour into how GDP is a poor measure of economic growth, and states (apparently) pursue it to the detriment of all else. These chapters are each written with the tone of someone who thinks they're questioning conventional wisdom.
After that, there is a chapter on the Belt and Road Initiative which I promise you've read before, and a chapter on how Empire was bad for Africa.
The writing is perfectly good, but there's no reason that 'GDP is bad' and 'there are a lot of stolen artefacts in the British Museum' belonged in the same book. There are obvious contortions that were required to describe everything as a 'myth'. This book doesn't deliver the thesis it promised, nor offer a central theme. It's eight scarcely-connected chapters of undergraduate analysis on the state of the world.
About two-thirds of the way through, there was an interesting chapter on Russia, and how Russia's search for a warm-water port has been wildly overstated (by Tim Marshall and Winston Churchill alike). Domestic politics and ideology are the driving force of Russian foreign policy, rather than anything that can be seen on the map.
But that's about it. Nothing else really makes any reference to 'geographic determinism', the belief that the geography of a state dictates what they do in international affairs. This flawed but fashionable view of politics is otherwise left intact.
Before that, are five chapters that say little that's original, and lack any sort of coherent message. We read that borders and nations are made up, and various iterations of 'walls don't work, Trump'. Sovereignty is a myth, also, despite the various Boris Johnson quotes he's used, presumably to display Brexit charitably. Most frustrating, was a detour into how GDP is a poor measure of economic growth, and states (apparently) pursue it to the detriment of all else. These chapters are each written with the tone of someone who thinks they're questioning conventional wisdom.
After that, there is a chapter on the Belt and Road Initiative which I promise you've read before, and a chapter on how Empire was bad for Africa.
The writing is perfectly good, but there's no reason that 'GDP is bad' and 'there are a lot of stolen artefacts in the British Museum' belonged in the same book. There are obvious contortions that were required to describe everything as a 'myth'. This book doesn't deliver the thesis it promised, nor offer a central theme. It's eight scarcely-connected chapters of undergraduate analysis on the state of the world.
September 7, 2025
22/06/2025 (**1/2)
Saggio in 8 capitoli. Il titolo italiano, come spesso capita, è del tutto fuorviante.
Il titolo inglese (Myth of Geography) è molto più appropriato.
Alcuni capitoli sono tipicamente argomenti geografici (il mito dei continenti, quello dei confini), mentre gli altri sono più propriamente argomenti geo-politici (critica al concetto di nazione, di sovranità, di misurazione della crescita).
Gli ultimi tre capitoli dedicati all'attualità (il mito dell'espansionismo russo, il mito della Nuova Via della Seta, il mito dell'Africa da salvare).
Il libro è interessante, ma nei primi capitoli riporta cose abbastanza note e risapute; negli ultimi non di particolare interesse per quel che mi riguarda e a volte probabilmente discutibili.
Saggio in 8 capitoli. Il titolo italiano, come spesso capita, è del tutto fuorviante.
Il titolo inglese (Myth of Geography) è molto più appropriato.
Alcuni capitoli sono tipicamente argomenti geografici (il mito dei continenti, quello dei confini), mentre gli altri sono più propriamente argomenti geo-politici (critica al concetto di nazione, di sovranità, di misurazione della crescita).
Gli ultimi tre capitoli dedicati all'attualità (il mito dell'espansionismo russo, il mito della Nuova Via della Seta, il mito dell'Africa da salvare).
Il libro è interessante, ma nei primi capitoli riporta cose abbastanza note e risapute; negli ultimi non di particolare interesse per quel che mi riguarda e a volte probabilmente discutibili.
August 12, 2025
Basically, we still know nothing, everything is made up and nothing is real.
October 20, 2024
I learnt a lot from this book, and it is rich with quotable facts and figures. It certainly made me rethink the way I view the geography and borders of the world, which is the whole idea of the book. It's been thoroughly researched, and the majority of the book is written very accessibly whilst the 'myths of geography' were clear and well explored.
I had hoped for something as close to 'politically neutral' as possible, but it unfortunately wasn't really.
I'd definitely recommend this to people with a foundational interest in geopolitics (I would imagine that those interested in this topic at a more advanced level are likely to find this a repeat of things they already know, but they might have an interest in the central argument).
I had hoped for something as close to 'politically neutral' as possible, but it unfortunately wasn't really.
I'd definitely recommend this to people with a foundational interest in geopolitics (I would imagine that those interested in this topic at a more advanced level are likely to find this a repeat of things they already know, but they might have an interest in the central argument).
June 25, 2025
I have finished reading “Myths of Geography: Eight Ways We Get the World Wrong” by Paul Richardson.
Rarely have I read a book such as this that started so strongly, but seemed to touch with it’s initial purpose surprisingly quickly. The author may have been sure in their message, and in some place it is passionately delivered, but it is not one promised by the title.
Ultimately, the author is right on many counts. Myths about geography, particularly how the physical world appears to us, are very real and have very real consequences for existing. However, almost uniformly these myths are dismissed as detrimental to mankind and ultimately of little use. Take for instance the discussion about how borders and nation-states have come about. According to the author these mostly lead to citizens being restricted by their nation-states. What is curiously absent is the stories of people who have felt liberated by being able to create nation-states from empires. This seems like a curious oversight considering the long discussion in the last chapter about decolonialisation.
In fairness though there are some genuine standout moments, such as the discussion about how the continents were arbitrarily outlined and named. It seems the Ancient Greeks started us off on this path (who else?). It is also intriguing to know that maps in Medieval England started with the East at the top, instead of the North, since it would begin with the Holy Lands. As the author points out, magnetic North has moved before and will move again.
I think this book lets itself down, or more accurately sets itself up to be knocked down, by sticking too much on political arguments in a book that is meant to centre on geography and by shameless headline grabbing. The author does very little to disguise their own personal politics, which bares many similarities to my own. This wouldn’t matter so much if it didn’t make the author lead the reader down familiar rabbit holes, by using pretty basic bread and butter arguments against Brexit for instance. While I don’t necessarily disagree with the author on many of the points they make, I did feel all too often that the author was allowing his indulgence to allow mission creep to set in, moving further away from what the book seemed to have been written for.
The headlines for the myths vary from the on point to the frustratingly and sometimes laughably disingenuous. Take for instance the apparent “myth” according to the author that Russia is an expansionist power. Their main justification for this being a myth is a few minor territorial concessions the newly independent Russia made to close down a few old naval enclaves (though not all, we are looking at you Kaliningrad) and latterly a shared island with China that eventually was acknowledged by Putin as fully Chinese. What is frustrating is that there were good points made in chapters such as this. The West’s obsession with Russia seeking “warm water ports” led to some bizarre positioning that surprised even Stalin at the end of World War 2. But how can you have any serious debates about Russian expansionism without mentioning the Great Game or the many Russian wars to take over the Ottoman Empire? Russia’s expansionism may have not always gone in a straight line but calling it a myth is more than a stretch.
The last chapter was perhaps the biggest let down. It looked to disprove the myth that Africa will remain poor. Again, most of the arguments were political, hardly any related to geography. This defies explanation where we have a continent blessed (or cursed) with lots of oil, Rare Earth’s, Diamonds and Gold. No mention is made whatsoever of the various tropical diseases which hold state development back. Instead, what follows is a long and familiar indictment of colonialism. To be fair, nothing the author says is wrong, but it seems oddly out of place with the myth he is trying to bus. Yes, there was nothing inevitable about colonial powers coming in and causing years worth of damage to various communities. But why reference geography in terms of the situation they find themselves in, why set this up at all? Weirdly, the book he accurately criticised “Prisoners of Geography” actually took time to look at the geography and have a pretty good go at explaining the geographic challenges to be overcome. Lord knows that colonialism should be denounced, but filling the entire chapter with that when the chapter seemed to promise another direction frankly tested my patience.
To be frank, while I did still learn a lot from this book, I can’t help but feel mislead by it. Many of the arguments that were presented at least deserve a listen, but dressing it up in this way will not advance them. I congratulate the author for at least trying to push people into a new mindset. But as someone who once nearly fell to political extremism himself, I advise him that while he is criticising other authors, he could benefit from looking at himself with a critical eye too. Prisoners of Geography sticks more to the geography but gets too classically geographically determinist. This book about geography is obsessed with left/liberal politics! Then again everyone has their flaws. Including this book reviewer!
Rarely have I read a book such as this that started so strongly, but seemed to touch with it’s initial purpose surprisingly quickly. The author may have been sure in their message, and in some place it is passionately delivered, but it is not one promised by the title.
Ultimately, the author is right on many counts. Myths about geography, particularly how the physical world appears to us, are very real and have very real consequences for existing. However, almost uniformly these myths are dismissed as detrimental to mankind and ultimately of little use. Take for instance the discussion about how borders and nation-states have come about. According to the author these mostly lead to citizens being restricted by their nation-states. What is curiously absent is the stories of people who have felt liberated by being able to create nation-states from empires. This seems like a curious oversight considering the long discussion in the last chapter about decolonialisation.
In fairness though there are some genuine standout moments, such as the discussion about how the continents were arbitrarily outlined and named. It seems the Ancient Greeks started us off on this path (who else?). It is also intriguing to know that maps in Medieval England started with the East at the top, instead of the North, since it would begin with the Holy Lands. As the author points out, magnetic North has moved before and will move again.
I think this book lets itself down, or more accurately sets itself up to be knocked down, by sticking too much on political arguments in a book that is meant to centre on geography and by shameless headline grabbing. The author does very little to disguise their own personal politics, which bares many similarities to my own. This wouldn’t matter so much if it didn’t make the author lead the reader down familiar rabbit holes, by using pretty basic bread and butter arguments against Brexit for instance. While I don’t necessarily disagree with the author on many of the points they make, I did feel all too often that the author was allowing his indulgence to allow mission creep to set in, moving further away from what the book seemed to have been written for.
The headlines for the myths vary from the on point to the frustratingly and sometimes laughably disingenuous. Take for instance the apparent “myth” according to the author that Russia is an expansionist power. Their main justification for this being a myth is a few minor territorial concessions the newly independent Russia made to close down a few old naval enclaves (though not all, we are looking at you Kaliningrad) and latterly a shared island with China that eventually was acknowledged by Putin as fully Chinese. What is frustrating is that there were good points made in chapters such as this. The West’s obsession with Russia seeking “warm water ports” led to some bizarre positioning that surprised even Stalin at the end of World War 2. But how can you have any serious debates about Russian expansionism without mentioning the Great Game or the many Russian wars to take over the Ottoman Empire? Russia’s expansionism may have not always gone in a straight line but calling it a myth is more than a stretch.
The last chapter was perhaps the biggest let down. It looked to disprove the myth that Africa will remain poor. Again, most of the arguments were political, hardly any related to geography. This defies explanation where we have a continent blessed (or cursed) with lots of oil, Rare Earth’s, Diamonds and Gold. No mention is made whatsoever of the various tropical diseases which hold state development back. Instead, what follows is a long and familiar indictment of colonialism. To be fair, nothing the author says is wrong, but it seems oddly out of place with the myth he is trying to bus. Yes, there was nothing inevitable about colonial powers coming in and causing years worth of damage to various communities. But why reference geography in terms of the situation they find themselves in, why set this up at all? Weirdly, the book he accurately criticised “Prisoners of Geography” actually took time to look at the geography and have a pretty good go at explaining the geographic challenges to be overcome. Lord knows that colonialism should be denounced, but filling the entire chapter with that when the chapter seemed to promise another direction frankly tested my patience.
To be frank, while I did still learn a lot from this book, I can’t help but feel mislead by it. Many of the arguments that were presented at least deserve a listen, but dressing it up in this way will not advance them. I congratulate the author for at least trying to push people into a new mindset. But as someone who once nearly fell to political extremism himself, I advise him that while he is criticising other authors, he could benefit from looking at himself with a critical eye too. Prisoners of Geography sticks more to the geography but gets too classically geographically determinist. This book about geography is obsessed with left/liberal politics! Then again everyone has their flaws. Including this book reviewer!
May 28, 2025
This book was a pretty easy read and a good introduction to human geographic concepts for a general audience. Most of it was topics I understood already but it was still a fun read and presented its arguments well. It almost reads as a direct counter to Tim Marshall’s bestseller “Prisoners of Geography”, a deeply flawed book with a minimal understanding of the world around us. It explains how nations, borders, sovereignty, and many other familiar concepts are abstractions that may actually be detrimental to humanity, and connects these ideas to today’s political climate.
May 1, 2025
A fascinating book that everyone should read. So much of the geopolitical boundaries that shape our world are utter nonsense, and this book taught me so much about how our man made geography has shaped human history - and how different it could be. I’d give it 10/5 if I could.
October 22, 2024
3.5/5 ⭐
Myths of Geography is exactly what it states on the cover: 8 ways in which we get the world wrong. Paul Richardson describes 8 very common ways of thinking about the world and explains convincingly how they describe an imagined reality mores than a physical one. Each chapter is a fascinating introduction to and reflection on its 'myth', filled with facts and examples. I get the sense that the author could've easily written a full book per myth (and I would have happily read them all).
Where this book fell short for me, is that it never really seems to come together as a coherent whole. The individual chapters are interesting, but don't all seem aimed at the same reader, and their connection to each other seems tenuous at best. The conclusion did offer a larger perspective on the 'myths of geography', but fell a bit flat for me. For me, it felt as if the author had a lot to say, but didn't take enough time and space to properly say it.
If you are interested in (and relatively new to) examining the ways in which we think about the geographical realities we live in, or if you are interested in learning more about any of the specific myths Richardson addresses, I can wholeheartedly recommend Myths of Geography as an excellent starting point.
Many thanks to Little, Brown Book Group for the E-ARC I received via Netgalley.
Myths of Geography is exactly what it states on the cover: 8 ways in which we get the world wrong. Paul Richardson describes 8 very common ways of thinking about the world and explains convincingly how they describe an imagined reality mores than a physical one. Each chapter is a fascinating introduction to and reflection on its 'myth', filled with facts and examples. I get the sense that the author could've easily written a full book per myth (and I would have happily read them all).
Where this book fell short for me, is that it never really seems to come together as a coherent whole. The individual chapters are interesting, but don't all seem aimed at the same reader, and their connection to each other seems tenuous at best. The conclusion did offer a larger perspective on the 'myths of geography', but fell a bit flat for me. For me, it felt as if the author had a lot to say, but didn't take enough time and space to properly say it.
If you are interested in (and relatively new to) examining the ways in which we think about the geographical realities we live in, or if you are interested in learning more about any of the specific myths Richardson addresses, I can wholeheartedly recommend Myths of Geography as an excellent starting point.
Many thanks to Little, Brown Book Group for the E-ARC I received via Netgalley.
July 20, 2025
Kuuntelin äänikirjana!
Pääpointti, jonka sain tästä kirjasta irti oli, että ihmisten pitäs yrittää olla enemmän niinku keisaripingviinit xddd. Oli kyllä oikeesti hyvä esimerkki, koska jäi tosi hyvin mieleen.
Ostin tän kirjan itelle, koska oon vähän maantiedenörtti, ja tykkäsin kyllä paljon! Jotenki ajattelin, että tää olis painottunut vielä enemmän vaan maantietoon, mutta tähän oli yhdistetty tosi kivasti historiaa ja paljon muuta mielenkiintoista asiaa! Kirjailija perusteli mun mielestä tosi hyvin kaikki väitteet!
Oli tosi ajankohtaista pohdintaa esimerkiksi Venäjän ja Unkarin suhteista, Kiinan uudesta "silkkitiestä", BKT:n käyttämisestä hyvinvoinnin/onnistumisen mittarina ja siitä, miten käsitellään menneisyydessä tapahtuneita epäoikeudenmukaisuuksia.
Jos tämmöset asiat kiinnostaa niin voin lämpimästi suositella!
Pääpointti, jonka sain tästä kirjasta irti oli, että ihmisten pitäs yrittää olla enemmän niinku keisaripingviinit xddd. Oli kyllä oikeesti hyvä esimerkki, koska jäi tosi hyvin mieleen.
Ostin tän kirjan itelle, koska oon vähän maantiedenörtti, ja tykkäsin kyllä paljon! Jotenki ajattelin, että tää olis painottunut vielä enemmän vaan maantietoon, mutta tähän oli yhdistetty tosi kivasti historiaa ja paljon muuta mielenkiintoista asiaa! Kirjailija perusteli mun mielestä tosi hyvin kaikki väitteet!
Oli tosi ajankohtaista pohdintaa esimerkiksi Venäjän ja Unkarin suhteista, Kiinan uudesta "silkkitiestä", BKT:n käyttämisestä hyvinvoinnin/onnistumisen mittarina ja siitä, miten käsitellään menneisyydessä tapahtuneita epäoikeudenmukaisuuksia.
Jos tämmöset asiat kiinnostaa niin voin lämpimästi suositella!
June 24, 2025
Set of 8 essays where I definitely enjoyed some over others. Read a bit like a textbook at points and so definitely dragged on the essays I didn’t fully get into. Also wouldn’t say outside of the first chapter these were myths of geography per se? I totally thought I was gonna read about fun mountain and ocean facts and not about topics like how appeals of sovereignty have been used in political campaigns. But honestly learned a lot so double u there
July 2, 2025
Excellent book about myths we have come to take for granted but which we should really reassess in order to deal with the challenges facing the world. These transcend borders and nations.
October 22, 2024
Myths of Geography by Paul Richardson
A fascinating read, making you think about both the political and economical points of view. The book provided me with useful information, facts, figures etc and it was written in an engaging way regardless of whether this is an area that you are familiar with or not.
Thanks to Netgalley for the opportunity to read this
A fascinating read, making you think about both the political and economical points of view. The book provided me with useful information, facts, figures etc and it was written in an engaging way regardless of whether this is an area that you are familiar with or not.
Thanks to Netgalley for the opportunity to read this
September 7, 2024
“Myths of Geography, Eight Ways We Get the World Wrong” by Paul Richardson is the latest in a string of geography-focused books that try to explain today’s world based on geographical history, and what geography can teach us about the future. Mr. Richardson specifically focuses on eight myths which most people believe, which shape our policies and ways we interact with each other:
The Myth of the Continents: How many continents are there? Are Europe and Asia really two separate continents (no)? What about North and South America? And what defines a continent?
The Myth of the Border: This section focuses on how we have tried to build walls throughout history, and how border walls have always failed. A nice lesson for us in the USA.
The Myth of the Nation: How do we define nations, countries, us and them? And will we always feel this way, especially in the digital age?
The Myth of Sovereignty: With the globalization of world economies, is any nation nowadays completely sovereign? Is England better off after Brexit?
The Myth of Measuring Growth: Why do we care so much about GDP? Are there better measures? What about the harm we do to the environment chasing GDP?
The Myth of Russian Expansionism: What are the goals of Putin and his view of Russia’ place in Eurasia and the world?
The Myth of China’s New Silk Road: Is there more behind China’s expansion other than world domination? How does the slowdown of China’s internal growth affect their plans for the world?
The Myth that Africa is Doomed to Fail: Can Africa overcome all of the history and destruction wrought by slavery and colonialism to emerge as an equal partner among nations?
These are all interesting myths and Mr. Richardson does a great job explaining the concepts along with many interesting facts and trivia. The main shortcoming, however, is that we never come to any conclusions, never answer the question ”so what?”, or explore why does this really matter.
I requested and received a free advanced electronic copy from Harlequin Trade Publishing, Hanover Square Press via NetGalley. Thank you!
The Myth of the Continents: How many continents are there? Are Europe and Asia really two separate continents (no)? What about North and South America? And what defines a continent?
The Myth of the Border: This section focuses on how we have tried to build walls throughout history, and how border walls have always failed. A nice lesson for us in the USA.
The Myth of the Nation: How do we define nations, countries, us and them? And will we always feel this way, especially in the digital age?
The Myth of Sovereignty: With the globalization of world economies, is any nation nowadays completely sovereign? Is England better off after Brexit?
The Myth of Measuring Growth: Why do we care so much about GDP? Are there better measures? What about the harm we do to the environment chasing GDP?
The Myth of Russian Expansionism: What are the goals of Putin and his view of Russia’ place in Eurasia and the world?
The Myth of China’s New Silk Road: Is there more behind China’s expansion other than world domination? How does the slowdown of China’s internal growth affect their plans for the world?
The Myth that Africa is Doomed to Fail: Can Africa overcome all of the history and destruction wrought by slavery and colonialism to emerge as an equal partner among nations?
These are all interesting myths and Mr. Richardson does a great job explaining the concepts along with many interesting facts and trivia. The main shortcoming, however, is that we never come to any conclusions, never answer the question ”so what?”, or explore why does this really matter.
I requested and received a free advanced electronic copy from Harlequin Trade Publishing, Hanover Square Press via NetGalley. Thank you!
May 5, 2025
Ihmismaantieteen apulaisprofessori Paul Richardsonin kirjan kansikuva herättää jo mukavasti ajatuksia. Kanteen on kuvattu Euroopan kartta, mutta ylösalaisin. Läpeensä tuttu kartta on merkittävästi vaikeampi hahmottaa, kun se on ylösalaisin. Mikään ei kuitenkaan sinänsä edellytä, että pohjoisen pitäisi olla kartassa ylhäällä; se on vain käytäntö, johon olemme tottuneet.
Kirjassa Richardson lähtee myytinpurkutalkoisiin kahdeksan aiheen parissa. Myyttiteema jää kuitenkin sivuseikaksi; kirjassa ei ole niinkään kyse totuttujen ajatusmallien purkamisesta kuin Richardsonin näkemysten saarnaamisesta. Se on vain kehystetty näin, mutta ainakin minut tämä kehystys sai odottamaan hieman erilaista kirjaa.
Alku on joka tapauksessa oivallinen. ”Myytti maanosista” purkaa käsitystä seitsemästä maanosasta. Miten niin seitsemän? Kuka päätti, missä maanosien rajat menevät? Erinomainen esimerkki tästä on kaikille Suomessa koulua käyneille tuttu käsitys siitä, että Euroopan ja Aasian raja menee Uralissa. Minulla on tästä syystä ollut käsitys, että Ural on merkittävä vuoristo, joka piirtää selvän rajan, mutta ihan jo karttaa tarkastelemalla käy ilmi, että monessa kohtaa on oikeastaan vaikea huomata, missä Ural ylipäänsä kulkee.
Uralin maanosien rajaksi keksi 1730-luvulla ruotsalainen upseeri Philip Johan von Strahlenberg. Eurooppalaisille on luonnollisesti ollut kulttuurisesti tärkeää kohottaa Eurooppa oman maanosan asemaan, vaikka maantieteellisiä perusteita sille on heikonlaisesti. Toisaalta voitaisiin perustella, että Euroopan ja Afrikan rajan pitäisi mennä Välimeren sijasta Saharassa, koska se on ollut paljon hankalampi maantieteellinen este – Pohjois-Afrikan kulttuurithan ovat olleet historiallisestikin paljon merkittävämmin kytköksissä Eurooppaan kuin Saharan eteläpuolinen Afrikka.
”Myytti rajoista” tekee selväksi, että kaikenlainen rajamuurien pystyttäminen on hölmöläisten hommaa, ja ylipäänsä rajojen käsite on vähän hankala ja luonnoton. Nykyajan käsitystä rajoista projisoidaan myös menneisyyteen: historiallisista muureista tunnetuimmat, Kiinan muuri ja Hadrianuksen muuri, eivät olleet ollenkaan sellaisia kaikenpysäyttäviä rajamuureja kuin millaisina ne herkästi mielletään.
Jos rajoja kyseenalaistetaan, miksei sitten myös kansakuntia? ”Myytti kansakunnasta” pohdiskelee lyhyesti nationalistisen kansakunnan käsitteen hankaluutta, sitä ketä halutaan ja ei haluta laskea mukaan kansakuntaan, miten monet kansalliset perinteet ovat varsin tuoreita ja teennäisiä keksintöjä ja miten hauras tämä käsite lopulta on. ”Myytti suvereniteetista” käsittelee ennen kaikkea Brexitiä ja sitä, miten mainoslause ”Otetaan valta takaisin” lupasi lopulta mahdottomuuksia: vaikka Britannia erosi EU:sta, valtion suvereniteetti ei ole koskaan ollut täydellistä, eikä nykypäivänä missään tapauksessa voi ollakaan.
”Myytti kasvun mittaamisesta” kyseenalaistaa bruttokansantuotteen merkitystä onnellisuuden mittarina. Luku alkaa vähän naheasti puhumalla ”sinisistä vyöhykkeistä”, maailmalta tunnistetuista pitkäikäisyyden alueista, joiden takana on kuitenkin lähinnä huonoa tiedettä ja tarkoitushakuista valikointia. Luvussa kehutaan myös Suomea siitä, miten ”poliittiset puolueet ovat viime vuosikymmenien mittaan keskittyneet pitämään huolta maksuttomasta korkeatasoisesta koulutuksesta, julkisesta terveydenhoidosta, asuntopolitiikasta ja taloudellisista turvaverkoista koko yhteisön hyväksi sen sijaan, että luottaisivat jakolinjoja aiheuttaviin ja tehottomiin tulonsiirtoihin rikkailta köyhille”. Richardson ei selvästikään ole kuullut maamme nykyisestä hallituksesta (joka toki tekee tulonsiirtoja vain köyhiltä rikkaille). Selvää toki on, että bruttokansantuote on kehnonpuoleinen mittari millekään inhimiselle, koska se jättää huomioimatta paljon ja laskee mukaan kaikenlaista negatiivista toimintaa.
”Myytti Venäjän ekspansionismista” kyseenalaistaa paljon toistellun käsityksen Venäjän tarpeesta saada lämminvesisatama. Tämä väite perustuu Pietari Suuren testamenttina tunnettuun dokumenttiin, joka on kuitenkin puolalainen propagandistinen väärennös. Richardsonin mukaan Putinia ja Venäjän johtoa ajaa ekspansionismin sijasta revansismi, joka tarkoittaa menetettyjen alueiden valtaamista takaisin menetetyn aseman, voiman ja kunnian palauttamiseksi. Putiniahan tuntuu kovasti houkuttavan Neuvostoliiton kunnian päivien palauttaminen.
”Myytti Kiinan uudesta silkkitiestä” ravistelee käsityksiä Kiinan Belt and Road Initiative -hankkeesta, jossa Kiina haalii vaikutusvaltaa eri puolilla maailmaa ja erityisesti Afrikassa monin tavoin. Osa hankkeesta oli muun muassa junayhteys Kiinasta Eurooppaan; se tosin kärsi pahasti Venäjän hyökkäyssodasta Ukrainaan. Maailmaa muokkaava infrastruktuurihanke on kuitenkin muutenkin mittava ja monin tavoin ongelmallinen. Ei se tosin Kiinallekaan ongelmaton ole: monet hankkeen osat Afrikassa ovat olleet vastatuulessa paikallisen vastustuksen vuoksi. Isoin kärsijä on joka tapauksessa ympäristö: Kiinan mittavat rakennushankkeet tuhoavat alleen jäävää ympäristöä ja tuottavat massiivisia hiilidioksidipäästöjä.
Lopuksi ”Myytti epäonnistumaan tuomitusta Afrikasta” käsittelee Afrikkaa siirtomaavallan kourissa. Siirtomaavallan oikeuttamiseen rakennettiin monenlaisia narratiiveja, jotka ovat kiistäneet Afrikan rikkauden, dynaamisuuden ja monimuotoisuuden. Esimerkiksi Zimbabwessa sijaitseva Suur-Zimbabwen rauniokaupunki tuotti rauniot kohdanneille eurooppalaisille vaikeuksia: heidän oli täysin mahdotonta ymmärtää, että afrikkalaiset olisivat pystyneet rakentamaan nämä rauniot. Niinpä väitettiin, että rauniot olivat sittemmin kadonneen valkoisen sivilisaation tai kenties arabikauppiaiden rakentamia.
Richardson muistuttaa myös, että kun monien Afrikan nykyisten valtioiden korruptoitunutta ja ongelmallista hallintoa taivastellaan, unohdetaan tyystin, että ongelmat ovat pitkälti siirtomaavallan aiheuttamia. Eurooppalaiset eivät rakentaneet siirtomaihin minkäänlaista yhteiskunnallista tai taloudellista kehitystä ja sen sijaan vain hävittivät kaikki olemassaolevat rakenteet. Eurooppalaisten äkillinen poistuminen jätti jälkeen sotkua ja väärin perustein vedettyjä rajalinjoja, joiden seurauksista monilla puolin Afrikkaa kärsitään edelleen.
Maantieteen myytit oli tosiaan kovin erisävyinen kirja kuin mitä mainostekstien perusteella odotin. Ei se kuitenkaan pettymys ollut: Richardson kirjoittaa varsin terävästi ja pisteliäästi, ja lopputuloksena on oikein viihdyttävä kirja kansainvälisestä politiikasta maantieteen näkökulmasta. Jos on hyvin perillä aiheesta, kirja tuskin tarjoaa kovin paljon uusia näkemyksiä, mutta minä ainakin sain tästä uutta ajateltavaa.
Kirjassa Richardson lähtee myytinpurkutalkoisiin kahdeksan aiheen parissa. Myyttiteema jää kuitenkin sivuseikaksi; kirjassa ei ole niinkään kyse totuttujen ajatusmallien purkamisesta kuin Richardsonin näkemysten saarnaamisesta. Se on vain kehystetty näin, mutta ainakin minut tämä kehystys sai odottamaan hieman erilaista kirjaa.
Alku on joka tapauksessa oivallinen. ”Myytti maanosista” purkaa käsitystä seitsemästä maanosasta. Miten niin seitsemän? Kuka päätti, missä maanosien rajat menevät? Erinomainen esimerkki tästä on kaikille Suomessa koulua käyneille tuttu käsitys siitä, että Euroopan ja Aasian raja menee Uralissa. Minulla on tästä syystä ollut käsitys, että Ural on merkittävä vuoristo, joka piirtää selvän rajan, mutta ihan jo karttaa tarkastelemalla käy ilmi, että monessa kohtaa on oikeastaan vaikea huomata, missä Ural ylipäänsä kulkee.
Uralin maanosien rajaksi keksi 1730-luvulla ruotsalainen upseeri Philip Johan von Strahlenberg. Eurooppalaisille on luonnollisesti ollut kulttuurisesti tärkeää kohottaa Eurooppa oman maanosan asemaan, vaikka maantieteellisiä perusteita sille on heikonlaisesti. Toisaalta voitaisiin perustella, että Euroopan ja Afrikan rajan pitäisi mennä Välimeren sijasta Saharassa, koska se on ollut paljon hankalampi maantieteellinen este – Pohjois-Afrikan kulttuurithan ovat olleet historiallisestikin paljon merkittävämmin kytköksissä Eurooppaan kuin Saharan eteläpuolinen Afrikka.
”Myytti rajoista” tekee selväksi, että kaikenlainen rajamuurien pystyttäminen on hölmöläisten hommaa, ja ylipäänsä rajojen käsite on vähän hankala ja luonnoton. Nykyajan käsitystä rajoista projisoidaan myös menneisyyteen: historiallisista muureista tunnetuimmat, Kiinan muuri ja Hadrianuksen muuri, eivät olleet ollenkaan sellaisia kaikenpysäyttäviä rajamuureja kuin millaisina ne herkästi mielletään.
Jos rajoja kyseenalaistetaan, miksei sitten myös kansakuntia? ”Myytti kansakunnasta” pohdiskelee lyhyesti nationalistisen kansakunnan käsitteen hankaluutta, sitä ketä halutaan ja ei haluta laskea mukaan kansakuntaan, miten monet kansalliset perinteet ovat varsin tuoreita ja teennäisiä keksintöjä ja miten hauras tämä käsite lopulta on. ”Myytti suvereniteetista” käsittelee ennen kaikkea Brexitiä ja sitä, miten mainoslause ”Otetaan valta takaisin” lupasi lopulta mahdottomuuksia: vaikka Britannia erosi EU:sta, valtion suvereniteetti ei ole koskaan ollut täydellistä, eikä nykypäivänä missään tapauksessa voi ollakaan.
”Myytti kasvun mittaamisesta” kyseenalaistaa bruttokansantuotteen merkitystä onnellisuuden mittarina. Luku alkaa vähän naheasti puhumalla ”sinisistä vyöhykkeistä”, maailmalta tunnistetuista pitkäikäisyyden alueista, joiden takana on kuitenkin lähinnä huonoa tiedettä ja tarkoitushakuista valikointia. Luvussa kehutaan myös Suomea siitä, miten ”poliittiset puolueet ovat viime vuosikymmenien mittaan keskittyneet pitämään huolta maksuttomasta korkeatasoisesta koulutuksesta, julkisesta terveydenhoidosta, asuntopolitiikasta ja taloudellisista turvaverkoista koko yhteisön hyväksi sen sijaan, että luottaisivat jakolinjoja aiheuttaviin ja tehottomiin tulonsiirtoihin rikkailta köyhille”. Richardson ei selvästikään ole kuullut maamme nykyisestä hallituksesta (joka toki tekee tulonsiirtoja vain köyhiltä rikkaille). Selvää toki on, että bruttokansantuote on kehnonpuoleinen mittari millekään inhimiselle, koska se jättää huomioimatta paljon ja laskee mukaan kaikenlaista negatiivista toimintaa.
”Myytti Venäjän ekspansionismista” kyseenalaistaa paljon toistellun käsityksen Venäjän tarpeesta saada lämminvesisatama. Tämä väite perustuu Pietari Suuren testamenttina tunnettuun dokumenttiin, joka on kuitenkin puolalainen propagandistinen väärennös. Richardsonin mukaan Putinia ja Venäjän johtoa ajaa ekspansionismin sijasta revansismi, joka tarkoittaa menetettyjen alueiden valtaamista takaisin menetetyn aseman, voiman ja kunnian palauttamiseksi. Putiniahan tuntuu kovasti houkuttavan Neuvostoliiton kunnian päivien palauttaminen.
”Myytti Kiinan uudesta silkkitiestä” ravistelee käsityksiä Kiinan Belt and Road Initiative -hankkeesta, jossa Kiina haalii vaikutusvaltaa eri puolilla maailmaa ja erityisesti Afrikassa monin tavoin. Osa hankkeesta oli muun muassa junayhteys Kiinasta Eurooppaan; se tosin kärsi pahasti Venäjän hyökkäyssodasta Ukrainaan. Maailmaa muokkaava infrastruktuurihanke on kuitenkin muutenkin mittava ja monin tavoin ongelmallinen. Ei se tosin Kiinallekaan ongelmaton ole: monet hankkeen osat Afrikassa ovat olleet vastatuulessa paikallisen vastustuksen vuoksi. Isoin kärsijä on joka tapauksessa ympäristö: Kiinan mittavat rakennushankkeet tuhoavat alleen jäävää ympäristöä ja tuottavat massiivisia hiilidioksidipäästöjä.
Lopuksi ”Myytti epäonnistumaan tuomitusta Afrikasta” käsittelee Afrikkaa siirtomaavallan kourissa. Siirtomaavallan oikeuttamiseen rakennettiin monenlaisia narratiiveja, jotka ovat kiistäneet Afrikan rikkauden, dynaamisuuden ja monimuotoisuuden. Esimerkiksi Zimbabwessa sijaitseva Suur-Zimbabwen rauniokaupunki tuotti rauniot kohdanneille eurooppalaisille vaikeuksia: heidän oli täysin mahdotonta ymmärtää, että afrikkalaiset olisivat pystyneet rakentamaan nämä rauniot. Niinpä väitettiin, että rauniot olivat sittemmin kadonneen valkoisen sivilisaation tai kenties arabikauppiaiden rakentamia.
Richardson muistuttaa myös, että kun monien Afrikan nykyisten valtioiden korruptoitunutta ja ongelmallista hallintoa taivastellaan, unohdetaan tyystin, että ongelmat ovat pitkälti siirtomaavallan aiheuttamia. Eurooppalaiset eivät rakentaneet siirtomaihin minkäänlaista yhteiskunnallista tai taloudellista kehitystä ja sen sijaan vain hävittivät kaikki olemassaolevat rakenteet. Eurooppalaisten äkillinen poistuminen jätti jälkeen sotkua ja väärin perustein vedettyjä rajalinjoja, joiden seurauksista monilla puolin Afrikkaa kärsitään edelleen.
Maantieteen myytit oli tosiaan kovin erisävyinen kirja kuin mitä mainostekstien perusteella odotin. Ei se kuitenkaan pettymys ollut: Richardson kirjoittaa varsin terävästi ja pisteliäästi, ja lopputuloksena on oikein viihdyttävä kirja kansainvälisestä politiikasta maantieteen näkökulmasta. Jos on hyvin perillä aiheesta, kirja tuskin tarjoaa kovin paljon uusia näkemyksiä, mutta minä ainakin sain tästä uutta ajateltavaa.
November 23, 2024
In Myths of Geography, Paul Richardson attempts to debunk myths that express different shades of geographical determinism.
The book is divided into 8 chapters, each addressing a particular myth of geographical determinism. These are the myths of
the nation,
the continent,
borders,
sovereignty,
measuring growth,
Russian expansionism,
the new silk road,
and that Africa is doomed to fail.
In these chapters he challenges recent popular accounts of geographical determinism and argues that the way the world is represented often isn't how it really is—that the map is not the territory.
The writing is clear and easy to follow. It is stretched out beyond what I consider necessary to convey its point but you can’t accuse the author of being obscure. There are books out there that try to explain development on the basis of geography. They dance precariously on the edge of geographical determinism. While such books have something important to say, they sometimes go too far in attributing to geography effects that should be attributed to human decision making. This book serves as a necessary corrective to that type of tendency.
Yet, where it attempts to correct geographical determinism, it over-corrects either by placing the ills of the world at the foot of the so-called geographical myths or by taking too seriously ideas which are significantly less than fringe.
For instance, in the myth of the nation we read
... nations as conceived today are not preordained or predetermined. They are contested and constructed, their borders are often arbitrary, and across which spill communities and identities. The myth of the nation is that their claim to being ancient, natural, and rooted is largely illusionary. As such, the symbols, displays, and performances of national identity need constant repetition and recitation, so that the intangible connections between today’s citizens, and between the distant past and the present, can be made to feel real. The making of the nation relies on the invention of tradition..
Are there people who rigidly believe that their nation is preordained or that they were not contested? If you know anyone then buy this book and give it to them. In fact the vast majority of people in the world know exactly when their nations were constructed through war, negotiation, or bargaining. Even people who have a particularly rooted attachment to their nations know that what we call nations today did not exist centuries in the past.
What of the myth of continents? The myth of the continent is not a real myth. It is a statement of historical and political construction. If I say someone is from Africa I am not naming a tectonic plate but a geopolitical and historical region of the world. Whether Morocco and Spain share the same tectonic plate is irrelevant to me. I know one is in Africa and the other is in Europe. Understanding that they sit on the same plate will not cause Morocco to be admitted to the European Union. Certain things are true not because they are scientifically accurate but because of political construction. And that’s all right. If there is a need to change it in the future it will be changed. Recognizing that political regions do not correspond to geographical reality doesn’t change anything.
Why?
If on a fundamental level we all realize and admit that the ideas we have about the world and geography do not exactly correspond to geographical reality then we ought to approach them from the level of social construction rather than geography. The decision to build a wall along the US-Mexico border cannot be challenged by geographical arguments but by political arguments. Whatever implication you wish to draw from the disadvantages of rigid nation states cannot be debunked geographically but on the upper level of geopolitics.
The book concludes with a call to change the way we view our world in order for us to be able to cooperate and solve transnational problems. I do not see how arguing that nations do not have timeless roots or that continents do not correspond to tectonic plates or that Russia really has a warm water port will suddenly get people to cooperate internationally. Problems such as COVID and Climate change will not be changed by changing our outdated views of geography. What needs to change is at the geopolitical layer.
As an aside, while I recommend this book purely for its argument for geographical determinism, its weaknesses are addressed, in my opinion, by another book:
Oceans Rise Empires Fall: Why Geopolitics Hastens Climate Catastrophe
The book is divided into 8 chapters, each addressing a particular myth of geographical determinism. These are the myths of
the nation,
the continent,
borders,
sovereignty,
measuring growth,
Russian expansionism,
the new silk road,
and that Africa is doomed to fail.
In these chapters he challenges recent popular accounts of geographical determinism and argues that the way the world is represented often isn't how it really is—that the map is not the territory.
The writing is clear and easy to follow. It is stretched out beyond what I consider necessary to convey its point but you can’t accuse the author of being obscure. There are books out there that try to explain development on the basis of geography. They dance precariously on the edge of geographical determinism. While such books have something important to say, they sometimes go too far in attributing to geography effects that should be attributed to human decision making. This book serves as a necessary corrective to that type of tendency.
Yet, where it attempts to correct geographical determinism, it over-corrects either by placing the ills of the world at the foot of the so-called geographical myths or by taking too seriously ideas which are significantly less than fringe.
For instance, in the myth of the nation we read
... nations as conceived today are not preordained or predetermined. They are contested and constructed, their borders are often arbitrary, and across which spill communities and identities. The myth of the nation is that their claim to being ancient, natural, and rooted is largely illusionary. As such, the symbols, displays, and performances of national identity need constant repetition and recitation, so that the intangible connections between today’s citizens, and between the distant past and the present, can be made to feel real. The making of the nation relies on the invention of tradition..
Are there people who rigidly believe that their nation is preordained or that they were not contested? If you know anyone then buy this book and give it to them. In fact the vast majority of people in the world know exactly when their nations were constructed through war, negotiation, or bargaining. Even people who have a particularly rooted attachment to their nations know that what we call nations today did not exist centuries in the past.
What of the myth of continents? The myth of the continent is not a real myth. It is a statement of historical and political construction. If I say someone is from Africa I am not naming a tectonic plate but a geopolitical and historical region of the world. Whether Morocco and Spain share the same tectonic plate is irrelevant to me. I know one is in Africa and the other is in Europe. Understanding that they sit on the same plate will not cause Morocco to be admitted to the European Union. Certain things are true not because they are scientifically accurate but because of political construction. And that’s all right. If there is a need to change it in the future it will be changed. Recognizing that political regions do not correspond to geographical reality doesn’t change anything.
Why?
If on a fundamental level we all realize and admit that the ideas we have about the world and geography do not exactly correspond to geographical reality then we ought to approach them from the level of social construction rather than geography. The decision to build a wall along the US-Mexico border cannot be challenged by geographical arguments but by political arguments. Whatever implication you wish to draw from the disadvantages of rigid nation states cannot be debunked geographically but on the upper level of geopolitics.
The book concludes with a call to change the way we view our world in order for us to be able to cooperate and solve transnational problems. I do not see how arguing that nations do not have timeless roots or that continents do not correspond to tectonic plates or that Russia really has a warm water port will suddenly get people to cooperate internationally. Problems such as COVID and Climate change will not be changed by changing our outdated views of geography. What needs to change is at the geopolitical layer.
As an aside, while I recommend this book purely for its argument for geographical determinism, its weaknesses are addressed, in my opinion, by another book:
Oceans Rise Empires Fall: Why Geopolitics Hastens Climate Catastrophe
July 3, 2025
First chapter was amazing. The rest is not what I expected (there’s a guy here Zachary that articulates it better) but basically entire issue with this book that it engages in a fallacy where it makes a claim and then supports this claim by either 1) making poetic & abstract claims (myth of sovereignty is a prime example) or 2) making isolated anecdotal arguments which are big headlines (myth of borders)
This book starts with an excellent premise and an insightful first chapter, but then loses focus and collapses under the weight of its own ambition . It tries to say something profound about nationhood and borders BUT ends up being messy, and intellectually thin
Myth of Continents:
The first chapter was amazing, an 8 out of 10. That may be slightly inflated due to the novelty of the ideas, but it genuinely offered a compelling narrative. It was the first time I encountered the concept that the invention of a continent came before its explanation. The chapter traces the evolution of continental boundaries, guided by the work of various cartographers and empires as a result of international iterations. For example
- By the 16th century, geographers realized that the Don River didn’t originate where previously thought and The Sea of Azov was far smaller than imagined the division between Europe and Asia, first noted almost 2,000 years ago, was wrapped in Christian dogma that resisted revision. Then came Swedish military officer Philippe Johan von Strahlenberg in the 18th century, who proposed using the Ural Mountains as the border. This was picked up by Russian intellectuals to align Russia with European modernity and Peter the Great’s ambitions. Russia’s expansion from the Baltic to Alaska, and its reorientation toward Europe, made the border a political project more than a geographical one.
The book convincingly argues that the definition of continents is arbitrary:
- Why is India considered a country but Europe is its own continent?
- Tectonic plates place Indian subcontinent under Oceania, Iceland should be split down in the middle, and Africa in slow process of breaking apart along GFV should be considered
- N and S America are separated despite being connected by land.
• Even Antarctica, with no permanent population, gets its own label.
And yet, Europe is framed as a “peninsula of Asia”, but elevated to continental status due to its supposed civilizational uniqueness.
Unfortunately, everything after the first chapter is disappointing
Myth of borders:
The second chapter is a prime example. It begins by discussing the U.S.–Mexico border, then veers into:
- The North/South Korea 38th parallel, citing JFK’s opinion that it’s meaningless
- Hadrian’s Wall in Britain
- The Great Wall of China
There’s no consistent thread or clear argument. It’s chaotic, disjointed, and peppered with political opinions that lack clarity or cohesion. The author leaps from one historical moment to another without stitching them into a meaningful narrative.
Myth of nation:
The book tries to make a case about how national identity is fictitious, but it never fully explains:
How US young history was in itself accepted by non unified germany. Proves only hypocrisy of these states rather than argue against their unification - something I’d expect from a chapter that denounced nationhood as a myth. Same w Italy - Rome only became part of the unified country in 1870, okay it’s nice context but argue against why it’s not a sophistication of nationhood rather than artificiality?
He makes a gesture at colonialism e.g., the British restriction of rights of Caribbean British colonies citizens in the UK but the implications are not drawn out. It just proves that nationhood and nations should be respected even extra-territorially rather than claiming its a myth
Myth of sovereignty (felt like rage bait): The UK dlaimed to get back control after Brexit but even after leaving, it’s bound by 700+ international treaties, which somehow “steal” its independence.
I personally think this is a wildly audacious and inaccurate interpretation of sovereignty
- There’s no economic data, no legal analysis, no political theory.
- It oversimplifies trade regulations and treaty obligations, turning them into vague threats to “sovereignty.” Saying that food standards and trade negotiations undermine national identity is a huge claim that needs deep evidence. The book doesn’t provide it. But I’d love to see it
Overall I’m deeply interested in overall big hypotheses that the author PROMISES but fails to substantiate so from now on I’m on a hunt for a longer but at least a more stimulating and interesting alternative.
Bonus comment: There’s an odd section on GDP that feels totally out of place. It doesn’t connect to the main argument. If you’re interested in GDP, The Little Big Number is a much better book.
This book starts with an excellent premise and an insightful first chapter, but then loses focus and collapses under the weight of its own ambition . It tries to say something profound about nationhood and borders BUT ends up being messy, and intellectually thin
Myth of Continents:
The first chapter was amazing, an 8 out of 10. That may be slightly inflated due to the novelty of the ideas, but it genuinely offered a compelling narrative. It was the first time I encountered the concept that the invention of a continent came before its explanation. The chapter traces the evolution of continental boundaries, guided by the work of various cartographers and empires as a result of international iterations. For example
- By the 16th century, geographers realized that the Don River didn’t originate where previously thought and The Sea of Azov was far smaller than imagined the division between Europe and Asia, first noted almost 2,000 years ago, was wrapped in Christian dogma that resisted revision. Then came Swedish military officer Philippe Johan von Strahlenberg in the 18th century, who proposed using the Ural Mountains as the border. This was picked up by Russian intellectuals to align Russia with European modernity and Peter the Great’s ambitions. Russia’s expansion from the Baltic to Alaska, and its reorientation toward Europe, made the border a political project more than a geographical one.
The book convincingly argues that the definition of continents is arbitrary:
- Why is India considered a country but Europe is its own continent?
- Tectonic plates place Indian subcontinent under Oceania, Iceland should be split down in the middle, and Africa in slow process of breaking apart along GFV should be considered
- N and S America are separated despite being connected by land.
• Even Antarctica, with no permanent population, gets its own label.
And yet, Europe is framed as a “peninsula of Asia”, but elevated to continental status due to its supposed civilizational uniqueness.
Unfortunately, everything after the first chapter is disappointing
Myth of borders:
The second chapter is a prime example. It begins by discussing the U.S.–Mexico border, then veers into:
- The North/South Korea 38th parallel, citing JFK’s opinion that it’s meaningless
- Hadrian’s Wall in Britain
- The Great Wall of China
There’s no consistent thread or clear argument. It’s chaotic, disjointed, and peppered with political opinions that lack clarity or cohesion. The author leaps from one historical moment to another without stitching them into a meaningful narrative.
Myth of nation:
The book tries to make a case about how national identity is fictitious, but it never fully explains:
How US young history was in itself accepted by non unified germany. Proves only hypocrisy of these states rather than argue against their unification - something I’d expect from a chapter that denounced nationhood as a myth. Same w Italy - Rome only became part of the unified country in 1870, okay it’s nice context but argue against why it’s not a sophistication of nationhood rather than artificiality?
He makes a gesture at colonialism e.g., the British restriction of rights of Caribbean British colonies citizens in the UK but the implications are not drawn out. It just proves that nationhood and nations should be respected even extra-territorially rather than claiming its a myth
Myth of sovereignty (felt like rage bait): The UK dlaimed to get back control after Brexit but even after leaving, it’s bound by 700+ international treaties, which somehow “steal” its independence.
I personally think this is a wildly audacious and inaccurate interpretation of sovereignty
- There’s no economic data, no legal analysis, no political theory.
- It oversimplifies trade regulations and treaty obligations, turning them into vague threats to “sovereignty.” Saying that food standards and trade negotiations undermine national identity is a huge claim that needs deep evidence. The book doesn’t provide it. But I’d love to see it
Overall I’m deeply interested in overall big hypotheses that the author PROMISES but fails to substantiate so from now on I’m on a hunt for a longer but at least a more stimulating and interesting alternative.
Bonus comment: There’s an odd section on GDP that feels totally out of place. It doesn’t connect to the main argument. If you’re interested in GDP, The Little Big Number is a much better book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 23, 2025
I don't have much to say about this book for better or worse.
It exposes eight "myths of geography," the majority of which are "myths" that anyone with a basic understanding of the world would already be aware of. For instance, I might ask you how many continents there are, and someone will inevitably say "well ack-shually, continents are artificial constructs, dontya know?" Well, yes, I do know that, most people know that, what's your point? I don't know, because the book doesn't really offer a thesis beyond an airy-fairy call to moving beyond borders and the nation-state.
And, okay, sure. That's not an unreasonable thing to imagine, nation-states are a relatively new development in human history, but again, this is basic knowledge. There's no real argument actually being put forth for most of the book, just musings about "myths." Again, it muses about the "myth of GDP," and while most people would agree that GDP has its downsides, there's little actual discussion to alternatives beyond general knowledge (e.g. the HDI).
There's also some more esoteric elements, for instance, the "myth of Russian expansionism." And okay, sure, let's call it a myth, it doesn't actually change what's happening in Ukraine right now. Maybe this is me projecting, but again, a lot of the book comes off as airy-fairy musings on the state of the world rather than actually delving into the brass tacks. For instance, the author is correct that climate change is a global issue that doesn't respect borders (and if anything, borders arguably make combatting it worse), but then waxes lyrical about a map of the London Underground being a basis for global unity because it shows "the connection of things rather than the geography," or something similar. Or, for instance, mentions Pan-Africanism, but doesn't actually examine the concept in any actual detail, despite Africa getting an entire chapter. "Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle" as the saying goes.
So, no. Book didn't do much for me. I've seen some people mention this as a counterpoint to "Prisoners of Geography," but having read both, all I can say is that PoG and its sequels were easily stronger than this.
It exposes eight "myths of geography," the majority of which are "myths" that anyone with a basic understanding of the world would already be aware of. For instance, I might ask you how many continents there are, and someone will inevitably say "well ack-shually, continents are artificial constructs, dontya know?" Well, yes, I do know that, most people know that, what's your point? I don't know, because the book doesn't really offer a thesis beyond an airy-fairy call to moving beyond borders and the nation-state.
And, okay, sure. That's not an unreasonable thing to imagine, nation-states are a relatively new development in human history, but again, this is basic knowledge. There's no real argument actually being put forth for most of the book, just musings about "myths." Again, it muses about the "myth of GDP," and while most people would agree that GDP has its downsides, there's little actual discussion to alternatives beyond general knowledge (e.g. the HDI).
There's also some more esoteric elements, for instance, the "myth of Russian expansionism." And okay, sure, let's call it a myth, it doesn't actually change what's happening in Ukraine right now. Maybe this is me projecting, but again, a lot of the book comes off as airy-fairy musings on the state of the world rather than actually delving into the brass tacks. For instance, the author is correct that climate change is a global issue that doesn't respect borders (and if anything, borders arguably make combatting it worse), but then waxes lyrical about a map of the London Underground being a basis for global unity because it shows "the connection of things rather than the geography," or something similar. Or, for instance, mentions Pan-Africanism, but doesn't actually examine the concept in any actual detail, despite Africa getting an entire chapter. "Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle" as the saying goes.
So, no. Book didn't do much for me. I've seen some people mention this as a counterpoint to "Prisoners of Geography," but having read both, all I can say is that PoG and its sequels were easily stronger than this.
August 20, 2024
Well, I like myths and geography, so this seemed like an interesting read. And it was, however ...
That's exactly what the author does throughout the entire book. In fact, however must be his favorite word, as he does his best to tear apart one well-known supposition after another. This is done with mixed success, despite obviously well-researched and cleverly presented arguments, because A. oppressively didactic, unengaging tone and B. what is the point being made here?
Yes, our world as seen on geopolitical maps is an artificial creation, and yes, the author quotes John Lennon's famous peace anthem "Imagine" and calls himself a dreamer, but what exactly is an alternative?
And just because a civilization lived without something for a long time, doesn't mean it can, wants, or should go back to that. Even if those things are artificial concepts. There are entirely too many examples of that, starting with the technology currently used to share this review.
Mind you, this doesn't mean I disagree with the points made in this book. I read the news - the world is obviously falling apart. But how can the data and arguments of this book be used to realistically improve things? While very good at facts, the book seems to ignore the basic presets of a modern society and people in it - on which my personal view is rather misanthropic (and fully supported by current events).
The best this book seems to offer, in practical terms, is a different perspective. An interesting read, overall, though when it comes to geography, I think I'll stick with Tim Marshall, who is a far superior writer. (The author actually argues one of his points from one of his books here, which was, again, very interesting.) Overall, things were learned, thoughts were had. As far as nonfiction reads go, that's a good return for the time invested. Thanks Netgalley.
That's exactly what the author does throughout the entire book. In fact, however must be his favorite word, as he does his best to tear apart one well-known supposition after another. This is done with mixed success, despite obviously well-researched and cleverly presented arguments, because A. oppressively didactic, unengaging tone and B. what is the point being made here?
Yes, our world as seen on geopolitical maps is an artificial creation, and yes, the author quotes John Lennon's famous peace anthem "Imagine" and calls himself a dreamer, but what exactly is an alternative?
And just because a civilization lived without something for a long time, doesn't mean it can, wants, or should go back to that. Even if those things are artificial concepts. There are entirely too many examples of that, starting with the technology currently used to share this review.
Mind you, this doesn't mean I disagree with the points made in this book. I read the news - the world is obviously falling apart. But how can the data and arguments of this book be used to realistically improve things? While very good at facts, the book seems to ignore the basic presets of a modern society and people in it - on which my personal view is rather misanthropic (and fully supported by current events).
The best this book seems to offer, in practical terms, is a different perspective. An interesting read, overall, though when it comes to geography, I think I'll stick with Tim Marshall, who is a far superior writer. (The author actually argues one of his points from one of his books here, which was, again, very interesting.) Overall, things were learned, thoughts were had. As far as nonfiction reads go, that's a good return for the time invested. Thanks Netgalley.
November 23, 2024
My initial thoughts on this book felt decidedly negative as the text seemed an attack on Britain from a hater of the UK, which got my hackles up. It felt like a far left, liberal university lecture against Brexit, the Tories (especially Boris Johnson), self-governance and any desire to curb migration. Fully in support of any country wanting to be out from under the yoke of British, Russian or Chinese control but failing to see that logic also applies to the UK regarding the EU? No longer wanting to be a fully paid up member of the EU club does not mean turning our back on Europe or not cooperating. It seemed short sighted and, well, rude.
I was able to relax into the book when I saw the author seemed to attack everyone from American Trumpism, Russia and China. If I were of these places I would feel equally aggrieved, though the bashing of the UK felt especially personal. Slavery, is a good example. From this text you might believe the UK was the only country in human history to garner wealth trafficking slaves. The Arabs and Vikings, to name a few, got off scot-free.
Needless to say, Myths of Geography got off to a bumpy start for me but I did grow to appreciate it more as the focus shifted to Russia, China and Africa. It's easy to paint Russia and China as enemies, and they may well be, but it is far more difficult to understand them. I found the insight here thought provoking and fascinating. I love Africa and have seen first hand China's meddling in her countries from the building of roads, airports and infrastructure so China can extract minerals, etc, to the great debt it burdens African countries with. It is worrying but not unlike what all colonisers did hundreds of years ago. But now it feels worse because we are so aware of these activities and can see the damage it does to indigenous peoples, their lands and seas, and the wider world.
I was able to relax into the book when I saw the author seemed to attack everyone from American Trumpism, Russia and China. If I were of these places I would feel equally aggrieved, though the bashing of the UK felt especially personal. Slavery, is a good example. From this text you might believe the UK was the only country in human history to garner wealth trafficking slaves. The Arabs and Vikings, to name a few, got off scot-free.
Needless to say, Myths of Geography got off to a bumpy start for me but I did grow to appreciate it more as the focus shifted to Russia, China and Africa. It's easy to paint Russia and China as enemies, and they may well be, but it is far more difficult to understand them. I found the insight here thought provoking and fascinating. I love Africa and have seen first hand China's meddling in her countries from the building of roads, airports and infrastructure so China can extract minerals, etc, to the great debt it burdens African countries with. It is worrying but not unlike what all colonisers did hundreds of years ago. But now it feels worse because we are so aware of these activities and can see the damage it does to indigenous peoples, their lands and seas, and the wider world.
December 22, 2024
In Myths of Geography: Eight Ways We Get the World Wrong, Paul Richardson unpicks some of geographical determinism's most established claims and invites the reader to reassess how they view the world and its inhabitants.
I found the first chapter, which focuses on the origins of the accepted continents and the fallacy of dividing the Earth along such arbitrary lines, to be utterly fascinating. Richardson combines the immutable facts of the Earth's physical geography with an in-depth understanding of Eurocentrism and its impact on the world to expose the concept of continents for the convenient fairy tale it is.
Unfortunately, I found many of the other chapters far less compelling. Some myths (such as the myth of borders) the author doesn't seem to consider weighty enough concepts to sustain a whole chapter's discourse, and instead devolves into histories of very specific places and periods of history, like Hadrian's Wall; others (such as the New Silk Road) expect a degree of understanding of less well-established concepts which is unlikely in the average lay reader, rendering these chapters a lot less accessible. Conversely, I found the lengthy sections about Brexit tedious as they felt like a retread of ideas that have been widely discussed for over eight years.
Additionally, Richardson does not do much to link the disparate chapters together in order to reinforce why all the points that he makes matter.
Thank you to NetGalley and Little Brown Book Group UK for the opportunity to read and review an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
I found the first chapter, which focuses on the origins of the accepted continents and the fallacy of dividing the Earth along such arbitrary lines, to be utterly fascinating. Richardson combines the immutable facts of the Earth's physical geography with an in-depth understanding of Eurocentrism and its impact on the world to expose the concept of continents for the convenient fairy tale it is.
Unfortunately, I found many of the other chapters far less compelling. Some myths (such as the myth of borders) the author doesn't seem to consider weighty enough concepts to sustain a whole chapter's discourse, and instead devolves into histories of very specific places and periods of history, like Hadrian's Wall; others (such as the New Silk Road) expect a degree of understanding of less well-established concepts which is unlikely in the average lay reader, rendering these chapters a lot less accessible. Conversely, I found the lengthy sections about Brexit tedious as they felt like a retread of ideas that have been widely discussed for over eight years.
Additionally, Richardson does not do much to link the disparate chapters together in order to reinforce why all the points that he makes matter.
Thank you to NetGalley and Little Brown Book Group UK for the opportunity to read and review an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
October 10, 2024
This is a book that combines politics, history, culture and geography. The author identifies 'eight myths of geography': continents, borders, nation states, sovereignty, measuring growth (GDP), Russian Expansionism, China's New Silk Road (BRI), and 'Africa beyond colonial cliches'. The book is wide-ranging, well-researched and contains some interesting and thought-provoking arguments. The author states that these myths are our way of creating order in a chaotic world and that without them we would not be able to structure our world. He goes on to say that "there must be a better means of ordering the world....[than] according to these myths". But he does not offer any suggestions regarding such means. Essentially of course, mankind makes sense of the world entirely through story-telling. Religion, money, politics, ideology, history, art, social status, almost everything is a 'construct', narratives that we choose to believe in and fight over. I could not find enough coherence linking these specific eight myths to bring the book together, nor do I think these are the myths that cause the greatest problems for our planet, apart perhaps from the obsession with economic growth/GDP. Special thank you to The Bridge Street Press/Hachette UK and NetGalley for a no obligation advance digital review copy.
January 19, 2025
This was an interesting peek into how myths of “geography” bind our outlook on the world. It was a nice spark for me personally to revisit topics I haven’t given much thought since college and it was light fare for a complicated topic.
But it felt a bit too light at times. Of course you can’t expect a 200-odd-page book covering 8 myths to go very far in-depth into any one topic, but the oversimplification felt a bit too much at times. As the author points out himself, 20 pages on the myth of Africa as a homogeneous region only serves to further that myth…so maybe don’t?
It also reminded me at times of my high school speech days, when 16-year-olds attempted to speak about the world by using introductions comparing modern wars to pop culture references. This book featured a chapter that quite literally started and ended with lyrics by John Lennon’s “Imagine”. Physical cringe.
In short, Myths of Geography was an entertaining enough and a quick read that will make the average person think a bit more about the world around them, but not quite substantial enough to give more than a passing “huh, that’s interesting” and move on. It fails to motivate the very perspective change it purports to encourage.
But it felt a bit too light at times. Of course you can’t expect a 200-odd-page book covering 8 myths to go very far in-depth into any one topic, but the oversimplification felt a bit too much at times. As the author points out himself, 20 pages on the myth of Africa as a homogeneous region only serves to further that myth…so maybe don’t?
It also reminded me at times of my high school speech days, when 16-year-olds attempted to speak about the world by using introductions comparing modern wars to pop culture references. This book featured a chapter that quite literally started and ended with lyrics by John Lennon’s “Imagine”. Physical cringe.
In short, Myths of Geography was an entertaining enough and a quick read that will make the average person think a bit more about the world around them, but not quite substantial enough to give more than a passing “huh, that’s interesting” and move on. It fails to motivate the very perspective change it purports to encourage.
October 24, 2025
"We can choose to stop worshipping false gods but it takes a bold leap of the imagination to stop believing in any one of them. Once we do though, the other myths fall like dominos."
A good counter-argument (ish) to other geographic "determinism" propositions like Jared Diamond's Gun Germs and Steel and Tim Marshall's Prisoners of Geography. Although as I take it, it's less of "everything is about geography" argument rather than "geography doesn't matter".
Each chapter in the book was enlightening and shows how much we do believe in literal "myths" that are in fact very, very recent and ahistorical (sovereignty for one); the chapter about continents was my favorite, for despite me knowing that continents can be charted and categorized into many silly and manmade ways (Enlightened Europe vs Oriental Asia, to name one), the chapter actually made me realize that even the mere definition of a "continent is surrounded by water" is contingent, man-made, and not "natural", which does make sense but still hits different when you actually *think* about it.
The book also ends with a rather optimistic call for fresh imagination to counter all these myths into ones that help in forging a better, more just future, and I loved it. Was a long-awaited counterargument to read!
A good counter-argument (ish) to other geographic "determinism" propositions like Jared Diamond's Gun Germs and Steel and Tim Marshall's Prisoners of Geography. Although as I take it, it's less of "everything is about geography" argument rather than "geography doesn't matter".
Each chapter in the book was enlightening and shows how much we do believe in literal "myths" that are in fact very, very recent and ahistorical (sovereignty for one); the chapter about continents was my favorite, for despite me knowing that continents can be charted and categorized into many silly and manmade ways (Enlightened Europe vs Oriental Asia, to name one), the chapter actually made me realize that even the mere definition of a "continent is surrounded by water" is contingent, man-made, and not "natural", which does make sense but still hits different when you actually *think* about it.
The book also ends with a rather optimistic call for fresh imagination to counter all these myths into ones that help in forging a better, more just future, and I loved it. Was a long-awaited counterargument to read!
November 15, 2024
Rating: 3.75/5 ⭐
Review:
✨It is really hard to write this review because it is non-fiction and about topics that I’m not really familiar with, making it a heavy read.
✨I’m reading this as a total beginner, a reader that is interested to learn more about what is discussed in this book.
✨The author presented several topics/questions as myths, but for me, I rather see them as another point of view of how we see the world today.
✨I learn a lot of new events and information related to geography, history and politics from various parts of the globe.
✨Because I am unfamiliar with topics discussed in this book, I try my very best to understand them. Plus, I personally agree with some opinions presented in the writing.
✨In my opinion, this book is written to challenge our current way of thinking on how we perceive the world. Personally from my reading, this book is a type of book that you read a bit then you stop to think before continuing. The process is repeated until the end of the book.
✨In conclusion, I do recommend this book for any readers that are interested in topics of geography, history and politics. However, it is totally an academic book, I would say.
✨Lastly, *side-eye* to the British Museum.
✨Thank you to Little, Brown Book Group UK and NetGalley for this ARC!
Review:
✨It is really hard to write this review because it is non-fiction and about topics that I’m not really familiar with, making it a heavy read.
✨I’m reading this as a total beginner, a reader that is interested to learn more about what is discussed in this book.
✨The author presented several topics/questions as myths, but for me, I rather see them as another point of view of how we see the world today.
✨I learn a lot of new events and information related to geography, history and politics from various parts of the globe.
✨Because I am unfamiliar with topics discussed in this book, I try my very best to understand them. Plus, I personally agree with some opinions presented in the writing.
✨In my opinion, this book is written to challenge our current way of thinking on how we perceive the world. Personally from my reading, this book is a type of book that you read a bit then you stop to think before continuing. The process is repeated until the end of the book.
✨In conclusion, I do recommend this book for any readers that are interested in topics of geography, history and politics. However, it is totally an academic book, I would say.
✨Lastly, *side-eye* to the British Museum.
✨Thank you to Little, Brown Book Group UK and NetGalley for this ARC!
February 22, 2025
This is a well researched, well written, fascinating book and if history and geography had been taught in school using these examples I would’ve understood a lot more. It seems extra apposite at the moment given a certain person trying to rename chunks of the world and deciding he can throw people out and build hotels. Paul Richardson shows that so much in the world is arbitrary and it’s the cliche of ‘history being written by the victors’. Especially white western men.
Who decided what country is in what continent? Who decides where boundaries are? How can people ‘discover’ countries which have always been there and are already populated? There’s lots on colonialism, on Chinese control, Russian encroachment and it’s all clear and understandable even to a layperson.
One quote Richardson uses is from historian David Ludden, "we have come to imagine that mobility is border crossing, as though borders came first, and mobility, second. The truth is more the other way round."
An excellent, enlightening, thought provoking read which should be read by politicians and anyone interested in borders and power.
I was given a copy of this book by NetGalley
Who decided what country is in what continent? Who decides where boundaries are? How can people ‘discover’ countries which have always been there and are already populated? There’s lots on colonialism, on Chinese control, Russian encroachment and it’s all clear and understandable even to a layperson.
One quote Richardson uses is from historian David Ludden, "we have come to imagine that mobility is border crossing, as though borders came first, and mobility, second. The truth is more the other way round."
An excellent, enlightening, thought provoking read which should be read by politicians and anyone interested in borders and power.
I was given a copy of this book by NetGalley
December 5, 2024
This was a fascinating book and left me room for much additional thought. I was quite drawn in about how the familiar continents became that way and how our view is all a matter of view from a pretty narrow perspective dating back centuries. Another particularly interesting section for me was the one on measuring growth, I think a part of me has been aware of this in some very general way but seeing it spelled out did make me see it more clearly. GDP doesn't necessarily reflect what we think it does and definitely is not a reflection of how successful a country is in the world picture. I think overall the book challenges our modern perceptions of aspect of geography. There's quite a bit of manipulation involved and what we "know" is often down to a few people creating the definition we believe today.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book and rate it four stars. I would like to thank Netgalley and Little Brown Book Group for giving me an advanced readers copy. I have provided my review under no obligation.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book and rate it four stars. I would like to thank Netgalley and Little Brown Book Group for giving me an advanced readers copy. I have provided my review under no obligation.
March 1, 2025
At once excellent but slightly irritating, Paul Richardson's book is a well-made physical product but the experience of reading it is bogged down by the somewhat dry, textbook-ish writing style. The cover image and physical form gave me the impression that Myths of Geography would be much more focused on the natural world and errors in human perceptions of it. It's instead a sociopolitical tract that delivers Richardson's worldview eight times using a different geographical topic as a starting point. To me it felt like a bait and switch. That's irritating, and I say that while noting that I agree with much of Richardson's worldview. While I happily read books that reinforce my political opinions all the time, I was drawn to THIS book for different reasons, and those expectations were let down. Myths of Geography resembles, to me, an issue of Foreign Affairs magazine editorials, and it's about the same page count. Richardson is a competent writer, but ultimately this book isn't on the level of, for example, a Sebastian Junger.
August 19, 2025
not what I expected but delightfully insightful
Myths of Geography wasn’t exactly the book I expected, but it turned out to be delightfully insightful. Paul Richardson does a wonderful job of breaking down some of the most common misconceptions we carry about the world and showing how geography shapes not only our maps, but also our politics, culture, and assumptions.
What I appreciated most was how approachable the writing is. Even though the subject matter is complex, Richardson presents it in a way that’s engaging without being overly academic. Some sections resonated more strongly with me than others, but each chapter left me with at least one idea I wanted to think more about.
This isn’t a book of dry facts and figures—it’s more about perspective, and it made me question things I thought I already knew. For that reason alone, I found it both refreshing and worthwhile. If you enjoy books that challenge your worldview and invite you to think differently about global issues, this is a great read.
Myths of Geography wasn’t exactly the book I expected, but it turned out to be delightfully insightful. Paul Richardson does a wonderful job of breaking down some of the most common misconceptions we carry about the world and showing how geography shapes not only our maps, but also our politics, culture, and assumptions.
What I appreciated most was how approachable the writing is. Even though the subject matter is complex, Richardson presents it in a way that’s engaging without being overly academic. Some sections resonated more strongly with me than others, but each chapter left me with at least one idea I wanted to think more about.
This isn’t a book of dry facts and figures—it’s more about perspective, and it made me question things I thought I already knew. For that reason alone, I found it both refreshing and worthwhile. If you enjoy books that challenge your worldview and invite you to think differently about global issues, this is a great read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews