Why all the poor reviews of Husserl I wonder? Or do they represent judgments about the value of this particular compilation? Welton really does know his Husserl and has included selections from most of the biggies here. I guess most people, even philosophers, are inclined to see Husserl as unmanageably complex, author of a dead-end absolute idealism that can't account for the genesis of its own "transcendental consciousness" (Derrida), or as a relic of the Fregean era in semantics whose theory of meaning and whose internalism lead him to an idealism that can't account for intersubjectivity (pragmatists perhaps; analytic semanticists). Still, it's important to read him in the first place, even if only to criticize his ideas. Maybe if we read him more closely than most are inclined to do in the U.S.A, we'll find elements of his philosophy worth reconsidering.