`Aristotle and the Metaphysics `by Vasilis Politis is an installment in the Routledge Philosophy Guidebook series. I have used this series on several previous occasions, and, have found it to be helpful - concise, accessible and relatively low-cost. This contribution, however, is disappointing.

The Metaphysics is an important work in classical philosophy and can be difficult without a guide. At the outset, Politis does a solid job of situating the work within the Western philosophical tradition and highlighting the issue that Aristotle is addressing- namely the nature of being. These types of commentaries are normally structured either thematically or chapter by chapter; Politis takes the thematic approach.

From a substantive perspective, I have little argument with the author's assessment; indeed, he seems a knowledgeable commentator. My criticisms are largely stylistic - while occasionally lucid, his writing is often rambling, repetitive and cumbersome. His frequent verbatim repetition caused me on several occasions to flip back and check to see if some pages had been accidently reprinted. Certainly, repetition can sometimes be a useful rhetorical tool helping to summarize or add emphasis - in this case, it was overuse and detracting. Unfortunately, such stylistic limitations have the effect of making the material more difficult and discouraging all but the most determined reader. A prime example is his handling of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC). To follow the metaphysics, it is important to consider how Aristotle understands the PNC, i.e. whether it is in a limited logical/linguistic sense, or in a broader ontological sense. An interesting point worthy of discussion - but not for thirty plus pages - it is not that difficult or controversial.

The discussion of universals and particulars is equally frustrating. Watching Politis struggle to find words to discuss these notions (granted they can be difficult), the uninitiated reader would almost think that the author is breaking new ground, rather than participating in a dialogue that is over two thousand years old. At one point he labors to find a term to describe an unqualified particular, why not use `bare particular' or `unqualified particular". Perhaps I miss his intention with respect to this particular point, however, the overall impression is of someone flailing away in the brush to break a trail, when an effective and well trodden path already exists.

Glancing at my review, perhaps my comments are a bit harsh. This is not a terrible book and the author is likely a capable scholar, however, his limitations as a writer, at least in this case, prevent him from communicating his knowledge in an effective manner. I wonder how many students will simply put this aside after a few chapters. Although I have no specific recommendations I would look elsewhere for a commentary on the Metaphysics.