Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Kingdom of Speech” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Kingdom of Speech

Tom Wolfe

3.51 · Rating details · 1,623 ratings · 365 reviews

The maestro storyteller and reporter provocatively argues that what we think we know about speech and human evolution is wrong.

Tom Wolfe, whose legend began in journalism, takes us on an eye-opening journey that is sure to arouse widespread debate. The Kingdom of Speech is a captivating, paradigm-shifting argument that speech—not evolution—is responsible for humanity's ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 304 pages

Published August 30th 2016 by Little, Brown and Company (first published 2016)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Kingdom of Speech, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Millions' Most Anticipated, Too: The Great Second-Half 2016 Nonfiction Book Preview

43 books — 30 voters

The Elements of Eloquence by Mark Forsyth

Language Published in Decade: 2010s

69 books — 4 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.51 ·

Rating details

· 1,623 ratings · 365 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The Kingdom of Speech

Dec 15, 2017 Warwick rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: language

Not having read any Tom Wolfe before, I was riveted by the prose style of this book, with its ellipses, colloquial asides, and multiple exclamation marks. I am sure it is possible to write a great book with this technique and perhaps Tom Wolfe has already done it, but this one is unfortunately a complete mess.

I say ‘unfortunately’ because as a matter of fact I agree with his basic position. What Wolfe is trying to do is summarise the internecine fighting of the linguistics world that followed Not having read any Tom Wolfe before, I was riveted by the prose style of this book, with its ellipses, colloquial asides, and multiple exclamation marks. I am sure it is possible to write a great book with this technique and perhaps Tom Wolfe has already done it, but this one is unfortunately a complete mess.

I say ‘unfortunately’ because as a matter of fact I agree with his basic position. What Wolfe is trying to do is summarise the internecine fighting of the linguistics world that followed Daniel Everett's work on the Pirahã language, which attacked Noam Chomsky's idea of a universal grammar. I've written lots about all this in my review of Everett's Language: The Cultural Tool; suffice to say here that UG had become more of an ideology than an academic theory, an aggressively enforced orthodoxy that had never produced any very interesting results, or been proved even slightly to reflect physiological or neurological reality.

Wolfe sees this as a David v. Goliath story, plucky little Dan Everett taking on the mean old dictator Chomsky, and in his telling the characters, and the arguments, are so simplified as to become cartoons. Furthermore, the first half of the book for some reason is about Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell, a diversion that is at best irrelevant and at worst misleading; the main effect on me was of exhausting my patience with Wolfe's cavalier approach to historical incident (‘Oh, Charlie, Charlie, Charlie…said Lyell’).

When we finally get on to the main event, Wolfe simply lifts anecdotes wholesale from Everett's Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes and retells them. It's impossible not to feel that you'd rather just be reading Everett first-hand. More dangerously, Wolfe gives the impression that the debate over language origins has now been solved, by Everett, which is very far from the case. Everett's main contribution was to puncture the Chomskyan hegemony; his own explanation, that language didn't evolve but rather was invented, like a bow and arrow, is interesting but a hell of a long way from conclusive.

That matters, because we already get too many writers making assumptions about where language came from, and when it developed, and what it was for, whereas the truth is that no one has the slightest idea – nothing about that has changed, and nor does it seem likely to, not that you'd know it from Wolfe's strange and breathless polemic. ...more

flag 40 likes · Like · see review

Sep 03, 2016 Jason Merchant rated it did not like it

If you ever wanted to read a book about a scientific field or two (in Wolfe's trademark flamboyant prose) that was utterly innocent of any understanding of science, here's your chance. This vapid piece of preening ignorance will stand as a pointless landmark (or better yet, sink like a witless stone) to sturm-und-drang self-regard. As an erstwhile colleague of mine put it in his review of the book in the Washington Post (here), the book is "unsullied by research."

You don't have to be an ...more

flag 27 likes · Like · see review

Sep 17, 2016 Douglas Wilson rated it really liked it

Shelves: apologetics-evangelism, philosophy, science

A great entertaining read. Wolfe gets off some magnificent and irreverent lines, aimed at the neo-Darwinian hand-wavers. Moreover, he is largely invulnerable to any counter attack from them because the one place he does his own hand-waving is a place where none of them can go. I hope to write more about this later.

flag 22 likes · Like · see review

Sep 16, 2016 Valerie Horner rated it it was amazing

When getting my Master’s degree in English, I discovered the fascinating world of linguistics. With my emphasis in English as a Second Language, I took classes in Psycholinguistics (which is the physical and neurological aspects of language acquisition). I was especially intrigued by how language functions similarly to the genetic code, and I loved Modern Grammar which can be used with any language using the principles of Universal Grammar. Universal Grammar, postulates Noam Chomsky (the
When getting my Master’s degree in English, I discovered the fascinating world of linguistics. With my emphasis in English as a Second Language, I took classes in Psycholinguistics (which is the physical and neurological aspects of language acquisition). I was especially intrigued by how language functions similarly to the genetic code, and I loved Modern Grammar which can be used with any language using the principles of Universal Grammar. Universal Grammar, postulates Noam Chomsky (the founder and king of modern linguistic theory), is innate in all human beings - moreover all languages are similarly constructed of verbs, adjectives, and nouns. What I didn’t realize, until I read Tom Wolfe’s superb book, The Kingdom of Speech, was that Chomsky had been toppled from his position of linguistic demi-Godhood by a relative newcomer, Daniel Everett.

In The Kingdom of Speech, Tom Wolfe not only takes down Chomsky in his usual sharp yet languid manner, but Charles Darwin and his “Just-so” stories on the evolution of man also undergo a, much needed, examination. What ties Darwin, Chomsky, Everett, and this book together is the quest to solve mystery of the origin of language. Darwin guessed that language evolved from humans imitating bird speech. Chomsky believed that language ability evolved within (an as yet unknown) brain/nervous system “organ.” However, a relative newcomer in the world of linguistics, Daniel Everett, Moody Bible College graduate and former missionary to a remote Amazonian tribe called the Piraha, throws a monkey wrench into “established” Chomskyan linguistics.
What Everett discovers in this Amazonian tribe is a people who do not have all of the Universal Grammar elements in their language. Furthermore, they have no words for colors or numbers, and they have no language for the past or future as they live in a state of eternal now. Everett says that the uniqueness of the Piraha language - because it does not prescribe to Chomsky’s Universal Grammar - proves that language ability is not innate but actually an artifact created by humans to live in community. In other words, language is a tool, a sophisticated tool, somehow devised by humans over time.
I have a number of problems with Everett’s ideas - which Tom Wolfe, by the way, seems to totally embrace. Everett see the Piraha as an example of the earliest humans. They have embraced very little from other cultures (in the Amazon rainforest) because of their belief that anything outside of their culture is inferior and should be dismissed. The Piraha’s language - although extremely difficult to learn - is a very limited language in complexity, sociological constructs, and vocabulary. This tribe can not even be counted as stone age in their technological development since they don’t have stone tools. Their only tools are very rudimentary bows and arrows. They live in lean to’s that are easily disposed of. Having no concept for the future, limits their desire (or need perhaps) to prepare for it.
Obviously such a people will leave few traces of their existence; however, I see no reason to view them as something from which stone age and present day humans have evolved. Of course, I am not a (macro) evolutionists, and what I am about to say is terribly politically incorrect, but could it not be equally true that this tribe is an example of devolution? Cannot change (change and evolution are synonyms) happen in both directions? For example, present day humans have smaller brains and weaker physiques than Cro Magnon people.
I would be very interested to see a DNA analysis of this 300 or so person tribe. I would not be surprised if they all have a common ancestor that broke off a few hundred or so years ago from another Amazonian tribe. Are they really a separate and distinct people as their language seems to imply.
I could speculate as to why their progenitors were not using a native language. Could they have been feral children who have little experience of human language. What kind of language would such a pair or more of ferals create? And although the extreme conditions of the Amazon rainforest make it seem unlikely for a child to survive without adults, perhaps this is the case for the origins of the Pirahas. Perhaps the progenitors were deaf/mutes? I assume the tribe has no legends of their beginnings since they have little concept of the past, so why or how they came to be will remain a mystery. However, the magnitude of Everett’s claim has not been thoroughly examined, it seems to me.
He is saying the Piraha’s language is akin to a prima lingua. If this is true, it should be easily proven by the Piraha tribe having a separate and distinct DNA lineage because, as we have seen throughout history, when different people groups intermingle, their languages also intermingle. Everett is claiming (by using them as an example of a prima indigenous people) that this tiny tribe has somehow stayed intact, separate, an unchanged - for what? 10,000 - 100,000 - 1 million years? It is hard to say because evolutionists throw out numbers for humanity’s beginnings as easily as strippers throw off clothes. All that is needed is a simple DNA test to prove if the Piraha are truly a separate indigenous people group. In other words, to make a whole new case for the origins of language based on one tiny tribe of people seems ludicrous.
I suppose my true colors as a Chomskyite are being exposed. I do believe in an innate language ability that is wired into our brains/nervous system. I only disagree with the evolutionary (as in macro-evolutionary) origin of speech. I would say that we are endowed by our creator with the ability to use speech and to understand language. In Genesis, the very first task that Adam was given was to name the animals. And in the Gospel of John in the New Testament, it states that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Language is divine.
It was especially interesting to me that Everett the former missionary turned away from Christ to follow the God of Anthropology and Evolution. Interesting but hardly surprising. There is no quicker way to derail and ruin a career in academia than to be a Christian. Any theory (of anything) that is based on Intelligent Design rather than evolution is dismissed out of hand in this very small and narrow world. Unfortunately the evolutionary worldview limits scholars to new hypotheses and possibilities as to the origin and development of language.

If you are interested in language or in understanding the philosophical trendsetters in the last 150 years, I highly recommend The Kingdom of Speech. Wolfe makes the journey in this 185 page book not only educational but enjoyable.
...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

May 26, 2018 L.A. Starks rated it really liked it

After Wolfe's death I looked for books he authored that I hadn't read. This is one.

The Kingdom of Speech is short (170 pages) and leans more on research than reporting. However, like all Tom Wolfe books it is a fun read, extremely clear, and non-obvious as he dissects the way in which human language has been treated in evolutionary theory--by, among others, Darwin, Chomsky, and Everett. Wolfe's discussion of Everett's field work with the Piraha is not to be missed.

While The Kingdom of Speech is ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Jul 17, 2016 Bob Kohn rated it it was amazing

Tom Wolfe one day stumbled across a 2014 essay by eight "heavyweight Evolutionists," the famed-linguist Noam Chomsky being notability among them, and was startled by their conclusion that, after 150 years of scientific research and academic speculation, what we know about speech and language remains "as mysterious as ever." A "poverty of evidence," they wrote, leaves us with "no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved."

Wolfe looked askance at this Tom Wolfe one day stumbled across a 2014 essay by eight "heavyweight Evolutionists," the famed-linguist Noam Chomsky being notability among them, and was startled by their conclusion that, after 150 years of scientific research and academic speculation, what we know about speech and language remains "as mysterious as ever." A "poverty of evidence," they wrote, leaves us with "no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved."

Wolfe looked askance at this conclusion, noting first how odd it was for a group of experts to announce "what abject failures they were," but then, wisely, proceeded to question the essay's underlying assumption. According to Chomsky et al, the notion that language has "evolved," just like any other trait of living organisms, was "uncontroversial." In the story which he presents, Wolfe, in his inimitable style as a reporter and storyteller, challenges that assumption: Why must language have evolved?

The story of evolution begins, of course, with Charles Darwin--or, as Wolfe reminds us, with Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913), who virtually beat Darwin to the punch on biological evolution, but ultimately questioned Darwin's conclusion on the evolution of language. The Darwin/Wallace rivalry, told entertainingly by Wolfe, is juxtaposed with the author's account of a more modern rivalry concerning the origin of language, one which pitted Chomsky's supposition of an inborn "universal grammar" against that theory's challenger, Daniel L. Everett ("Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes"). Everett concluded, after closely studying a tribe indigenous to a remote part of the Amazon, that language did not evolve; rather, he posits, it is an “artifact” created by mankind.

The story ends with Wolfe choosing sides. His solution to the mystery will, no doubt, be quickly added to the long list of unsubstantiated theories he cites. Words "create meaning," Wolfe suggests. Yet others, beginning long before him, have contended (far more convincingly) just the opposite: we create words to designate meaning, while meaning is, simply, apprehended. In short, the origin of language has an essential side to it which, to the reader's misfortune, Wolfe never explored. It is a view that has been with us since Aristotle walked the streets of Athens, one which does not pre-suppose a divinity, but which, consistent with Everett, insists that language could not have evolved biologically.

Thus, in this significant way, Wolfe's tour of the origin of language is incomplete. Nevertheless, his challenge to scientific authority has merit. The eight evolutionists deserve credit for admitting what they do not know, but to suggest their quest for an evolutionary basis of language is "uncontroversial," opened them up to the very entertaining smack down Wolfe has thoughtfully delivered in his "The Kingdom of Speech." ...more

flag 15 likes · Like · see review

Sep 07, 2016 Maxwell Hansen rated it did not like it

Maybe Tom Wolfe should be commended for diving headfirst into a complicated, even esoteric, debate raging inside linguistics and exposing it to a far larger audience than ever before. But praise for this book should really end there.

As someone with some formal training in linguistics and more extensive exploration of the field as a hobby, I read Wolfe's prose in the voice of a supremely confident, almost entirely uninformed brat. In dealing with the fraught, hotly debated question of the origin Maybe Tom Wolfe should be commended for diving headfirst into a complicated, even esoteric, debate raging inside linguistics and exposing it to a far larger audience than ever before. But praise for this book should really end there.

As someone with some formal training in linguistics and more extensive exploration of the field as a hobby, I read Wolfe's prose in the voice of a supremely confident, almost entirely uninformed brat. In dealing with the fraught, hotly debated question of the origin of language, Wolfe cannot resist engaging in gross simplifications and exaggerations, which turned me off entirely and really limited his credibility as a narrator. As an example, he repeatedly boils long-winded, highly technical series of academic "comments" (i.e. criticisms) and their subsequent rebuttals into Facebook-style clickbait headlines: "Everett et al DEMOLISH Chomsky and His Ilk". Not once does he actually engage with the academic materials he references, likely because he does not know how.

Wolfe is very obviously invested in a simple David and Goliath narrative, one in which a humble, soft-spoken newcomer (Dr. Daniel Everett) takes on the academic establishment and wins in resounding fashion. In fact, the matter in question is far, far from settled, and the thuggish, intimidating Goliath (in this case Noam Chomsky) is mostly conjured out of thin air. Perhaps most irritatingly, Wolfe is not at all interested in grappling with the actual content of the academic debate - he simply declares a winner and revels in the drama of his unlikely victory.

When Wolfe does get around to positing where he thinks language came from, or rather, what he thinks Dr. Everett thinks, his summation is laughably simple, even crude. After repeatedly mocking some of the great minds of all time (e.g. Darwin, Chomsky) for failing to construct an effective explanation for language's origins, he puts forth an unbelievable, almost comical, theory that he spends all of two pages expounding. Charles Darwin, it turns out, is no match for Tom Wolfe.

The whole thing is smug, pretentious and, frankly, insulting. Maybe worst of all, Tom Wolfe abuses ellipses. No, seriously, you will not believe the number of pointless ellipses he uses. ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Sep 03, 2016 Mark rated it did not like it

I normally enjoy Tom Wolfe, but this takedown of modern linguistics is simply a rant. His "new journalism" style was completely unsuited to persuading me of the validity of some of his rather specious scientific arguments. Despite the fairly copious footnotes, there was little evidence that Wolfe's understanding of either evolution or linguistics had any depth.

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Sep 02, 2016 Lukas Evan rated it did not like it

Shelves: social-political, american-contemporary

Tom Wolfe tries to take down Charles Darwin and Noam Chomsky with baffling (and terrible) results. Alternate title: "The Wrong Stuff."

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Sep 05, 2016 William rated it liked it

This book forms a loose trilogy with "The Painted Word," Wolfe's dissection of art and art criticism, and "From Bauhaus to Our House," his similar evisceration of architectural theory. This book is different in that Wolfe has ventured into scientific theory - or actually, holy writ, i.e. Darwinian evolutionary theory. Those two books also dealt with a smaller topic - the conflict between American independent thought and the tendency of American intellectuals to follow European "isms," one of This book forms a loose trilogy with "The Painted Word," Wolfe's dissection of art and art criticism, and "From Bauhaus to Our House," his similar evisceration of architectural theory. This book is different in that Wolfe has ventured into scientific theory - or actually, holy writ, i.e. Darwinian evolutionary theory. Those two books also dealt with a smaller topic - the conflict between American independent thought and the tendency of American intellectuals to follow European "isms," one of Wolfe's particular bugaboos.

But even though this book deals with science, you see the same themes as Wolfe's earlier works - the importance of cultural and class distinctions in how thoughts gain social currency; the need for human beings to group themselves off into hostile tribes, even within "civilization"; the capacity of intellectuals to accept large concepts for largely non-intellectual reasons, and the importance of personality in shaping what are supposed to be impersonal concepts that shape how we live our lives. Wolfe likes to toss these occasional grenades into the ether and watch people shrink in horror when they see their various sacred cows in art, science or politics threatened.

Like those earlier works, Wolfe does some reporting but largely relies on previously published work, into which he injects his own distinctive style. One need only look at the reviews to see some of his suspicions confirmed -How dare this mere journalist question the accepted logic of scientists?! What could he possibly know of science?! All sounding, strangely enough, like offended clergymen confronted with 'The Origin of the Species.'

There are various stories within the story - and Wolfe enjoys showing Darwin as not so much a big brain but as a man with maladies and pride and vanity, much in the same vein as Noam Chomsky and others. This drives home his point that our intellectual heroes are not always so much concerned with truth as their own jealously-guarded reputations.

Keeping in mind this is a 169-page book with footnotes, Wolfe isn't interested in a big takedown of evolutionary theory as much as a window on how human beings digest thought. One gets a sense of the vast acreage of how much we don't really know about areas we pretend we completely understand, and how much of what we think is unshakeable scientific fact may be resting on foundations of educated guesses, making us no different than the ancestors we look down upon. The effect perhaps isn't so much that we should mistrust what we know as we should never be afraid to question any part of it.
...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jul 11, 2017 Mikey B. rated it liked it

Shelves: contemporary-society, journalism

I generally enjoy Tom Wolfe, but this is an exception.

This is a diatribe, a rant.

He goes after two, I feel, very, unrelated individuals – Charles Darwin and Noam Chomsky.

Wolfe’s main theme is language – the premise being that this distinguishes us(humans) from all others on the planet. I have no argument with this.

He blasts Darwin for not acknowledging this. But Darwin was a naturalist. He was not a speech linguistic researcher. Was Wolfe trying to discredit evolution? This seems a tall order.

...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Apr 23, 2018 Jake McAtee rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

4.5. Wolfe demonstrates how Speech is the silver bullet for Darwinism. He shows that Chuck D himself felt it then, and how Chomsky grants it today. The disrespect is delicious.

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Sep 16, 2016 MundiNova rated it did not like it

Shelves: nonfiction-science

Imagine you're at a party and off in the corner is an enigmatic man dressed in white talking to a large group. He has them eating out of his hand as he loudly, and drunkenly, has a one sided debate about language, Darwinism, and his own wit.

From your view across the room, you're uncertain about this man. But as you get closer - out of curiosity, of course - you listen in and can't help but find him mildly entertaining. Maybe you'll listen a little more. His story takes form as David vs. Goliath ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Dec 24, 2016 Rex Fuller rated it it was amazing

Surprisingly, for me at least, Wolfe careens between wildly engaging works, think Bonfire of the Vanities, to the near tears boredom inducing, A Man in Full. This one you figure, try it, maybe? Well...!

He first takes on no less than the god Darwin. He makes two basic points. One, Darwin may have stolen his theory of evolution (Alfred Russell Wallace beat Darwin to the theory of natural selection and sent his paper to Darwin for review). And two, speech—not evolution—is responsible for humanity's ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Sep 08, 2016 Brendan rated it did not like it

This book is, simply put, the heresy of an uneducated washed-up author. Wolfe's logic is completely lacking and shows how not arrive at a theory through proper scientific method. He makes several claims in the book that show how uneducated he is. This is not because he disagrees with the standard theory, but because his arguments consist of claiming there is no proof. A senior highschool student could come up with stronger arguments FOR his claims. This is the type of rhetoric that damages the ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Nov 22, 2016 Don rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science

I normally would give this a 4 star rating, but I noticed there are a lot of pained 1 star reviews, so I upped my rating to a 5 to bring back some balance to the total average.

Wolfe is generally in good standing with the liberal defenders of evolution who are for the most part all for his criticism of investment bankers (The Bonfire of the Vanities) or big business (A Man in Full). When he decided to tear down liberal icons Charles Darwin and Noam Chomsky, the reaction has been less than kind.

...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 27, 2016 Rock rated it it was ok

Depending on how much Wolfe's writing style irritates you, most of this book is a readable but disjointed and superficial narrative trying but mostly failing to connect two largely separate fields. Combining the vagueness of informal language with the pomposity of formal language, Wolfe's style is grating and awkward for non-fiction writing, but this book is short enough that it didn't accumulate into intolerable for me. The text, while clearly under-researched, still touches on enough important ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 01, 2016 Larry rated it really liked it

Wonderful to have Tom Wolfe back and setting fire to sacred cows. This is a bit like his classic attacks on pretentious flim flammery From Bauhaus to Our House and The Painted Word but it also shares a lot of characteristics with snappy popular history like The Right Stuff or even popular science histories like Longitude. The language is crackling and playful throughout, even more so than his usual in order to make a "the medium is the message" point about the subject of the book. Thoroughly ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Oct 07, 2016 Ashley rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Tom Wolfe wrote a book on a subject where he has no knowledge. He also appears unable to meaningfully back/cite/logically argue any of his lofty claims. This is one of the worst books I've ever read. I hated his writing style which came across as pompous, over confident, and rude. He also used way too many ellipses and said "solar plexus" an unreasonable number of times in such a short book. This book is poorly argued, makes no sense, and is generally extremely annoying. Another key shortfall: ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

May 28, 2017 Nathan rated it it was amazing

This book is a Chestertonian take-down of Darwin and Chomsky. Excellent. Very fun.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jun 27, 2016 Venessa rated it it was amazing

Watch for my review in an upcoming issue of Library Journal!

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Oct 09, 2017 Joshua rated it liked it

Shelves: cultural-studies

Five stars for making fun of Darwin (for the despicable way he double-crossed Alfred Wallace) and Chompsky (for being an armchair intellectual nincompoop). (I mean, these gods are worshipped so devotedly so as to make you ill). Hearing Darwin's little tree of life sketch being described as 'abortive' makes me laugh even now, because my lecturers were so sanctimonious about it in class... I laughed so much that I don't think I'll ever be able to read anything by those two too seriously (actually, ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 09, 2018 Asher Littlefield rated it did not like it

It had its funny parts and interesting moments, but it barely seemed to touch the topic of speech, spending the first half on evolution’s history, the second on the wars over language, and the last chapter focused on speech. Most troublesome of all, Wolfe acted like an annoyed child each time he had to “correct” himself with the “new politically correct” terms for indigenous people, making it partway through the word “native” EVERY TIME. It was obnoxious.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 07, 2016 Valerie Kyriosity rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: audiobooks

I was scrolling through thousands of my library's digital offerings when I saw this and thought, "Hmmm...I've never read any Tom Wolfe; maybe I should give him a try." I now want to read everything he's written. He's got a remarkable gift with words, so it is not remarkable that he would turn is attention in this book to the subject of how we got them. First, he rounds up the usual emperors in their usual new clothes, parades them before us, and pokes them with sticks that wouldn't hurt so bad ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Aug 30, 2016 Jeremy marked it as to-read

Shelves: non-fiction, science, dictionary-language

Humorous NYT review here: "[T]his book is a rebuke of the work of the linguist Noam Chomsky, whom Mr. Wolfe refers to as 'Noam Charisma.' Rebuke is actually too frivolous a word for the contumely Mr. Wolfe looses in his direction. More precisely, he tars and feathers Mr. Chomsky before sticking a clown nose on his face and rolling him in a baby stroller off a cliff."

See here for comments on the kudzu of "settled science," and see here for Cheaney's article on how "Darwinism hasn't been able to ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 05, 2017 Rachel Moyes rated it it was ok

But what even is the point of this book?

I didn't read the synopsis before I started. I figured from the title that I would be interested. The whole time, I thought, "What is the thesis of this book?" What I settled upon was that maybe Wolfe was trying to use the interpersonal conflicts of those involved to partially explain why all the linguists and evolutionist and psychologists couldn't explain language even 150 years later?

But no, that wasn't even it. He was just telling interesting stories ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 06, 2017 Corey rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 2017

I'd forgotten what a rambunctious, eloquent, mentally-arresting writer Tom Wolfe is. And here he's thumbing his nose at one of modernity's most sacred Golden Cows: the Theory of Everything. Of all the nerve.

Well worth reading, if only for the part where Darwin's work is praised as more imaginative than Kipling's. I was almost in tears.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 01, 2016 Donal rated it really liked it

If you have always been suspicious of the Chomsky hagiography gang, you will enjoy this book. If you are or were part of the gang, you should probably read it.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 06, 2017 Tyler Jones rated it it was ok

Shelves: science, linguistics

I thought the first few chapters about how Darwin was forced to rush out his theory of evolution through natural selection were really great, probably because the story was new to me. Wolfe kept his own point of view largely in the background, but his assertions that the British class structure kept a middle-class working naturalist, Alfred Wallace, from getting proper recognition seem plausible to me.

The book started to fall apart when it jumped forward almost a century, and Wolfe tries to ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 07, 2018 Heather rated it really liked it

I picked this up because I saw that Tom Wolfe had died, and I'd never read anything of his. This was the first to come available at the library.

Not only was it so good that I want to read more from Wolfe, but for the first time I was really interested in reading about Darwin and the linguistics of Chomsky (as opposed to just his stuff about politics). At one point I even stopped to say aloud, "Holy shit, this is so fascinating!"

I liked Wolf's sarcastic and funny writing style, and the way he ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
How To Write An Amazing Speech	1	2	May 09, 2019 11:31PM
Madison Mega-Mara...: #18 The Kingdom of Speech	1	4	Apr 08, 2017 03:25PM
Madison Mega-Mara...: #42 The Kingdom of Speech	1	4	Oct 17, 2016 11:10AM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Nonfiction

69 users

Science

50 users

History

19 users

Humanities > Language

17 users

Humanities > Linguistics

15 users

Psychology

10 users

Audiobook

8 users

See top shelves…

About Tom Wolfe

Tom Wolfe

1,880 followers

Wolfe was educated at Washington and Lee Universities and also at Yale, where he received a PhD in American studies.

Tom Wolfe spent his early days as a Washington Post beat reporter, where his free-association, onomatopoetic style would later become the trademark of New Journalism. In books such as The Electric Koolaid Acid Test, The Right Stuff, and The Bonfire of the Vanities, Wolfe delves into ...more

Books by Tom Wolfe

More…

Trivia About The Kingdom of Sp...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from The Kingdom of Sp...

“To say that animals evolved into man is like saying that Carrara marble evolved into Michelangelo's David. Speech is what man pays homage to in every moment he can imagine.” — 2 likes

“it consisted of sudden, uncontrollable vomiting and every sort of pain in his distended belly and bowels, every known belch, retch, heave, gas-pass, watery rush, and loathsome gush, plus foul wind erupting from one end of his digestive tract and foul sounds eructing grrrrekkk from the other.” — 1 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — The Kingdom of Speech by Tom Wolfe

The Kingdom of Speech

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Tom Wolfe

Books by Tom Wolfe

Trivia About The Kingdom of Sp...

Quotes from The Kingdom of Sp...

See a Problem?

Preview — The Kingdom of Speech by Tom Wolfe

The Kingdom of Speech

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Tom Wolfe

Books by Tom Wolfe

Trivia About The Kingdom of Sp...

Quotes from The Kingdom of Sp...

new topic
Discuss This Book