This book and I didn't get off to a good start. In the end, I still didn't like the book very much, but at least I don't hate it as much as most of my fellow students seem to do.
This book is supposed to be an overview of the history of anthropology, and other fields of study that have influenced it (like linguistics, sociology, etc.). Agar mentions interesting studies, but overall the book is hardly scientific (e.g. no sources mentioned). It puzzles me that one of the supposedly most difficult courses in my university prescribes this book. It doesn't seem like a book aimed at a student audience.. I got the feeling Agar wrote this to get random people interested in anthropology. Without extensive side material and good classes, I feel this book fails as a scientific effort.
Agar has definitely had some nice experiences in his life, however. As a story teller he's not half bad (though he still has some issues there, as well). I do enjoy reading about his experiences, particularly because he's lived in Vienna for quite a while, so I expected to be able to relate to that. Maybe it's the time difference, but he and I had very different experiences. Still, I liked reading about Agar's experiences in getting used to other cultures, even if at times he really seemed overly American (and ignorant).
What I did not like was his attitude at times, mostly in the beginning. For instance his criticism on the Sie/du-issue in German. This is mostly fueled by the fact that English doesn't use this distinction, I do think. To say that most people would be happier if this distinction were to disappear altogether? Well, I seriously doubt it. I've encountered difficulties with Sie/du as well, but taking them out of the language would just create a myriad of other problems in a culture where this system is embedded, and used as a means to show, amongst other things, respect. It's a throwaway comment of Agar's, but at times it seriously made me wonder to which extent I should trust this guy as a narrator.
Sometimes he's just an ass, too. When talking about De Saussure for instance, he mentions that the guy's work was published by his students, and that it was based on their notes. This is common knowledge, but his comment saying that he hopes his students wouldn't do that, because he'd seen the kind of notes they make.. well, that's both unnecessary and disrespectful. These little things bothered me while reading.
The book is also written in 1996, and quite dated in some aspects by now. The most obvious issue being that the Yugoslavian war has ended, but you do wonder what else we would question in the light of the other newfound knowledge from the past 15 years.
In short: some personal anecdotes were interesting, but on the whole.. don't bother. There are surely better introductions out there.