Zakaria justifies his narrow geographical scope by suggesting that the legacy of a few major political and economic revolutions in the West forms a "master narrative" that can explain societal change elsewhere. But it is just weird to read a history of revolutions that barely mentions Vladimir Lenin ... Zakaria’s real preference is for slow, moderate revolts, preferably of the Anglo-American Protestant variety. But this inclination is exclusive to his treatment of political revolutions; he is quite forgiving of radical economic change, even when the result is mass suffering.
Breathtakingly ambitious ... Age of Revolutions successfully bridges the divide between the general reader and the academic. It is an easy read that offers fresh perspective. That is no mean feat.
[Zakaria's] evocations of historical inflection points feel dutiful and formulaic. They are also confusing ... Zakaria’s book concludes that revolutions fail when they’re visited on societies that are unprepared to adapt to new conditions. He has little to say about what kinds of outcomes might be desirable, but much to say about what we should not do.
