What do you think?
Rate this book
General Chemistry
When it was first published, this first-year chemistry text revolutionized the teaching of chemistry by presenting it in terms of unifying principles instead of as a body of unrelated facts. Those principles included modern theories of atomic and molecular structure, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. In addition, Dr. Pauling attempted to correlate the theories with descriptive chemistry, the observed properties of substances, to introduce the student to the multitude of chemical substances and their properties.
In this extensively revised and updated third edition, the Nobel prizewinning author maintains an excellent balance between theoretical and descriptive material, although the amount of descriptive chemistry has been decreased somewhat, and the presentation of the subject, especially in relation to the nonmetals, has been revised in such a way as to permit greater correlation with the electronic structure of atoms, especially electronegativity.
The principles of quantum mechanics are discussed on the basis of the de Broglie wavelength of the electron. The quantized energy levels of a particle in a box are derived by means of a simple assumption about the relation of the de Broglie waves to the walls of the box. No attempt is made to solve the Schrödinger wave equation for other systems, but the wave functions of hydrogen-like electrons are presented and discussed in some detail, and the quantum states for other systems are also covered. Statistical mechanics is introduced before thermodynamics, and the discussion of thermodynamics is based on it. This arrangement reflects the author's belief that beginning students can understand statistical mechanics better than chemical thermodynamics.
Aimed at first-year college students who plan to major in chemistry or closely related fields, the book is written in a logical, clear and understandable style. In addition, many excellent figures are included, along with numerous problems and 75 pages of appendixes covering such topics as symmetry of molecules and crystals, hybrid bond orbitals, and magnetic properties of substances.
In this extensively revised and updated third edition, the Nobel prizewinning author maintains an excellent balance between theoretical and descriptive material, although the amount of descriptive chemistry has been decreased somewhat, and the presentation of the subject, especially in relation to the nonmetals, has been revised in such a way as to permit greater correlation with the electronic structure of atoms, especially electronegativity.
The principles of quantum mechanics are discussed on the basis of the de Broglie wavelength of the electron. The quantized energy levels of a particle in a box are derived by means of a simple assumption about the relation of the de Broglie waves to the walls of the box. No attempt is made to solve the Schrödinger wave equation for other systems, but the wave functions of hydrogen-like electrons are presented and discussed in some detail, and the quantum states for other systems are also covered. Statistical mechanics is introduced before thermodynamics, and the discussion of thermodynamics is based on it. This arrangement reflects the author's belief that beginning students can understand statistical mechanics better than chemical thermodynamics.
Aimed at first-year college students who plan to major in chemistry or closely related fields, the book is written in a logical, clear and understandable style. In addition, many excellent figures are included, along with numerous problems and 75 pages of appendixes covering such topics as symmetry of molecules and crystals, hybrid bond orbitals, and magnetic properties of substances.
959 pages, Paperback
First published June 8, 1970
254 people are currently reading
3,610 people want to read
About the author
Linus Pauling
107books88followersLinus Carl Pauling, Chemistry, Winner of multiple Nobel Prizes including 2 unshared awards
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
June 7, 2016
All of our ideas about life involve chemical reactions.
Hard as it is for me to believe now, at one point I was on a path to become a chemist. Throughout elementary and high school, I had always been best at science; and chemistry was my favorite subject. By the time I was a junior, I was taking an advanced course with a teacher who now, for me, embodies the archetypical chemist: He had a long white beard (he belonged to a special club of genuinely-bearded Santa Clause impersonators), always wore suspenders on top of his plaid shirt (which curved around his prodigious potbelly), and spoke in a phlegm-filled, mumbling voice that often made him difficult to understand. He was a fantastic teacher. I absolutely loved the class, and came out of it determined to study chemistry in college.
I enrolled in honors chemistry for my first semester, and sat in the lecture hall (a concrete bunker from the 60s), eagerly awaiting our professor’s arrival. The man came in, and I couldn’t help but laugh: He had a long white beard, wore suspenders, and spoke in a gruff voice. It seems that this style is trendy among chemists.
Several months later, I was sitting in an art gallery, waiting for my friend who worked there to get off her shift. As I waited, I began working on my chemistry homework for next week—the gigantic textbook plopped open in my lap, a pencil in my teeth, my brow knit, my empty stomach occasionally complaining. I got to a problem where I had to figure out how different amounts of two separate acids would affect the pH of water when added simultaneously. This boggled my mind, for I knew that the effect of an acid on the pH of a solution depends on the pre-existing pH; so each dissolving acid would be affecting each other simultaneously. I quickly got a headache, shut the book, and rubbed my temples. I dropped chemistry next semester.
I know that the above paragraphs are totally unnecessary in a book review, but I wanted to explain my motivation for reading a chemistry textbook: in a strange and charming way, it was a walk down memory lane. And besides, I still think that chemistry is fascinating. Chemistry is called “The Central Science,� and for good reason; chemistry is involved in nearly everything. Most obviously, there is a high degree of overlap in the subject matter of chemistry and physics; but chemistry touches on much more. For example, it seems generally acknowledged that life itself can be understood as an elaborate chemical process: how we metabolize food, how DNA replicates, how proteins are made, how nerves transmit information.
You need chemistry to understand how antidepressants work, how antibiotics work, why butter melts on a stove but your stainless-steel frying pan doesn’t, why the Statue of Liberty is green and old junkers are red, why soap cleans off grease but water doesn’t, why eggs turn white when cooked (and then black when cooked longer), why rubber makes such good car tires but such bad pants (trust me), how we extract oxygen from the air we breathe, how wine is made from grapes and beer from barley, why sour-cream-and-onion potato chips taste so good, why Spam never seems to go bad but ham does, why it’s safe to touch an outlet with a wooden spoon but not with a metal one (please don’t test this, though), why diamonds are forever and pencils are for writing, why you’re not allowed to take flash pictures of famous artwork, and why the artwork is often sealed off in glass cases—and so much else. Really, it’s worth learning some chemistry.
Added to chemistry’s large reach is a satisfying theoretical elegance, perhaps only surpassed by physics. To me, the periodic table is one of the greatest accomplishments of humankind. It is a thing of beauty. First, it is visually appealing—easy to read, nice on the eye, able to fit snuggly on a single page. But packed into this chart is a fantastic amount of information. Here we see the basic building blocks of our world; this is the kitchen pantry from which everything you know has been cooked up. Not only this, but just by seeing where elements slot into this structure, we can make many predictions about their properties. (And of course this is how many elements were predicted before they were isolated in a lab.) We can tell how easily elements will lose or gain electrons, and thus what kinds of compounds they are likely to form. As far as science goes, I submit that the periodic table is hard to beat.
This is all the good news; the bad news is that I don’t think you should learn chemistry from this book. Yet before I delve into the reasons why I say this, I remind you that I am by no means an expert on chemistry, and not even an especially knowledgeable layperson. This review is, for the most part, the opinion of somebody who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. You’ve been warned.
Most obviously, Pauling’s General Chemistry is outdated; the last edition was published in 1970, almost half a century ago. Granted, this is often not noticeable, as our basic notions of chemistry have remained largely the same since then; but it is sometimes annoying, such as the periodic table printed in the beginning of the book—which, although similar, is formatted a bit differently than our modern one. There are likely many details of calculation and experimental method that also differ (not that I am sensitive to these things); and many of the industrial processes Pauling describes as cutting-edge have been supplanted by newer ones.
Yet this complaint is more or less a quibble. More irritating for me was that this book is dry and difficult. You may be thinking, “Of course it’s dry and difficult, it’s a chemistry textbook!� Yet I was (perhaps foolishly) expecting something rather different, partly because, in The Double Helix, James Watson repeatedly remarks that Pauling is an excellent writer, and also because this textbook has been so influential and is still in print after all these years. Pauling’s General Chemistry is often mentioned in the same breath as three other influential textbooks: Samuelson’s Economics, Feynman’s Lectures in Physics, and William James’s Principles of Psychology. Having read at least parts of the latter three, it is obvious to me why they are considered classics: they are written in an engaging and brilliant style, which manages to be both informative and alluring. Pauling’s style, by contrast, is unadorned, plain, and in general devoid of all stylistic flourish. He is not trying to hold the reader’s attention.
I know it may be unreasonable of me to ask a textbook writer to be interesting; but I’m still perplexed how Pauling, for whom chemistry was the passion of his life, could write so dispassionately about his subject. Of course, one does need to keep in mind his audience. He was not trying to persuade people to study chemistry; he was teaching a class of Caltech students. This perhaps explains why he includes some surprisingly advanced physics. Very early on, he explains a bit of the general theory of relativity; and he even includes some material from quantum mechanics. It thus seemed obvious to me that this textbook was not written with people like me in mind (the enthusiastic but ignorant dilettante), but rather for quite sharp science students who already knew their physics, and who didn’t need somebody to hold their hand through the material.
(I also want to point out that, according to some Amazon reviewers who seem to know their stuff, Pauling’s presentation of the material is quite idiosyncratic. In some reviewers� eyes, the eccentricity of this book makes it unsuitable for an introductory college course nowadays.)
For the above reasons, I decided early on that I wouldn’t try to rigorously teach myself from this book, but would read it in my typical leisurely and lazy way, skipping over any sections that bored me, and spending time on any that caught my eye. Despite this, I still managed to remind myself of much of the information I thought I had forgotten from high school. And, notwithstanding this book’s bare and spare style, I did rediscover some of the charm and quiet glory of this central science. I particularly liked Pauling’s chapter on water, which aimed to explain why water has so many unusual properties. In fact, the chapter was so effective that I wish Pauling had applied this method to his other subjects: take an everyday phenomenon, like the melting of ice cubes, and use it as a springboard for a discussion of chemical principles. Yet it is perhaps only a utopian dream that chemistry textbooks be irresistible reading.
To sum up this already overlong, bloated, and off-topic review, I wouldn’t recommend this book if you are, like me, trying to teach yourself some chemistry. True, it is quite cheap compared with other textbooks; but this is its sole advantage. You will often find yourself left behind, and more often simply bored. But if you are a fairly advanced student, I think you may get quite a bit from this book. Pauling was, after all, an incredible scientist, even if he wasn’t an incredible writer.
February 11, 2015
Good chemistry books. Contains everything about chemistry. Every fucking thing.
May 3, 2015
Linus Pauling was one of the most influential and gifted scientists of the 20th century and the winner of the 1954 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. This book was first published in 1947 but subsequently revised and the edition I read was from 1970. It's obviously rather dated in some of its information, but not as much as it could have been. However, as a chemist myself, my interest in reading it was to see if any of Pauling's genius was apparent in his style of writing. Could he, for example, present some of the fundamental theories of chemistry in ways that less brilliant chemists were unable to? Did he have insights that were denied to lesser scientists? The answers, I concluded, were no. To this end I was disappointed. His book is solid and comprehensive but very dry and there is no sense of the passion that he must have felt for his subject being conveyed in his writing.
At least in the earlier chapters, Pauling's approach is very heavy on the history of physics and chemistry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This approach is not to my personal liking and whilst purists might argue that historical context is essential for a thorough understanding, in my own view it does little to raise interest. Nevertheless, it is a book of its time and other chemistry books from around 1970 (the era when I was at university) followed a very similar approach. It was just that I was hopeful that a scientist of Pauling's standing may have broken the mould - regrettably. he didn't! It may be telling that Pauling's book was not one that appeared on reading lists when I was at university, which suggests that even then it wasn't considered to stand out from the myriad of other chemistry books then available to students.
I admit to having read only about the first third of this book, giving up when I was sure that Pauling wasn't going to excite me with a novel interpretation of chemistry. Obviously present day students of the subject will be much better off reading modern books on the subject and this book is now little more than of historical interest.
At least in the earlier chapters, Pauling's approach is very heavy on the history of physics and chemistry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This approach is not to my personal liking and whilst purists might argue that historical context is essential for a thorough understanding, in my own view it does little to raise interest. Nevertheless, it is a book of its time and other chemistry books from around 1970 (the era when I was at university) followed a very similar approach. It was just that I was hopeful that a scientist of Pauling's standing may have broken the mould - regrettably. he didn't! It may be telling that Pauling's book was not one that appeared on reading lists when I was at university, which suggests that even then it wasn't considered to stand out from the myriad of other chemistry books then available to students.
I admit to having read only about the first third of this book, giving up when I was sure that Pauling wasn't going to excite me with a novel interpretation of chemistry. Obviously present day students of the subject will be much better off reading modern books on the subject and this book is now little more than of historical interest.
September 10, 2012
One of the best books for advanced students. A sample:
"Kinds of Definition
Definitions may be either precise or imprecise. The mathematician may define the words that he uses precisely: in his further discussion he then adheres rigorously to the meaning of each word. We have given some precise definitions above. One of them is the definition of the kilogram as the mass of a standard object, the prototype kilogram, that is kept in Paris. Similarly, the gram is rigorously and precisely as 1/1000 the mass of the kilogram.
On the other hand, the words that are used in describing nature. which is itself complex, may not be capable of precise definition. In giving a definition for such a word the effort is made to describe the accepted usage."
More accurate a sample of definition:
Substances
A substance is usually defined by chemists as a homogeneous species of matter with reasonably definite chemical composition.
By this definition. pure salt, pure sugar, pure iron, pure copper. pure sulfur, pure water. pure oxygen. and pure hydrogen are representative substances. On the other hand, a solution of sugar in water is not a substance; it is, to be sure, homogeneous. but it does not satisfy the second part of the above definition. inasmuch as its composition is not definite but is widely variable. being determined by the amount of sugar that happens to have been dissolved in a given amount of water. Similarly, the gold of a gold ring or watch case is not a pure substance, even though it is apparently homogeneous. lt is an alloy of gold with other metals, and it usually consists of a crystalline solution of copper in gold. The word alloy is used to refer to a metallic material containing two or more elements: the inter metallic compounds are substances. but most alloys are crystalline solutions or mixtures.
Sometimes (as in the section of this chapter) the word "substance� is used in a broader sense. essentially as equivalent to material. For the sake of clarity, the chemist`s more restricted meaning may bc indicated by the phrase "pure substance."
Our definition is not precise, in that it says that a substance has reasonably definite chemical composition. Most materials that the chemist classifies as substances (pure substances) have definite chemical composition; for example. pure salt consists of the two elements sodium and chlorine in exactly the ratio of one atom of sodium to one atom of chlorine. Others, however. show a small range of variation of chemical composition; an example is the iron sulfide that is made by heating iron and sulfur together. This substance has ai range in composition of a few percent.
Here my decision point: must to read.
"Kinds of Definition
Definitions may be either precise or imprecise. The mathematician may define the words that he uses precisely: in his further discussion he then adheres rigorously to the meaning of each word. We have given some precise definitions above. One of them is the definition of the kilogram as the mass of a standard object, the prototype kilogram, that is kept in Paris. Similarly, the gram is rigorously and precisely as 1/1000 the mass of the kilogram.
On the other hand, the words that are used in describing nature. which is itself complex, may not be capable of precise definition. In giving a definition for such a word the effort is made to describe the accepted usage."
More accurate a sample of definition:
Substances
A substance is usually defined by chemists as a homogeneous species of matter with reasonably definite chemical composition.
By this definition. pure salt, pure sugar, pure iron, pure copper. pure sulfur, pure water. pure oxygen. and pure hydrogen are representative substances. On the other hand, a solution of sugar in water is not a substance; it is, to be sure, homogeneous. but it does not satisfy the second part of the above definition. inasmuch as its composition is not definite but is widely variable. being determined by the amount of sugar that happens to have been dissolved in a given amount of water. Similarly, the gold of a gold ring or watch case is not a pure substance, even though it is apparently homogeneous. lt is an alloy of gold with other metals, and it usually consists of a crystalline solution of copper in gold. The word alloy is used to refer to a metallic material containing two or more elements: the inter metallic compounds are substances. but most alloys are crystalline solutions or mixtures.
Sometimes (as in the section of this chapter) the word "substance� is used in a broader sense. essentially as equivalent to material. For the sake of clarity, the chemist`s more restricted meaning may bc indicated by the phrase "pure substance."
Our definition is not precise, in that it says that a substance has reasonably definite chemical composition. Most materials that the chemist classifies as substances (pure substances) have definite chemical composition; for example. pure salt consists of the two elements sodium and chlorine in exactly the ratio of one atom of sodium to one atom of chlorine. Others, however. show a small range of variation of chemical composition; an example is the iron sulfide that is made by heating iron and sulfur together. This substance has ai range in composition of a few percent.
Here my decision point: must to read.
March 14, 2017
I did not take any Chemistry classes in high school or college, but started reading chemistry books to gain some basic knowledge. I have been working my way back from more advanced Chemistry books to General Chemistry. This was a very long book, but very informative. I found that from reading the more advanced books that most of the concepts in this book seemed relatively simplistic by comparison. I would say that this book is great for anyone just trying to learn a little about General Chemistry. It does assume you have a little Chemistry background and knowledge of Calculus. The math equations were not necessarily needed to be solved or worked to obtain insightful understanding of the general concepts. Overall, I considered this book a very enjoyable read and would recommend as an insightful read.
August 21, 2011
Heavy read, Heavy, Heavy. You better freshen up your College Algebra and Calculas or you won't make through this one. But is excellent primary Chemical reference and the way Pauling writes it is more like a story.
September 28, 2017
Great book, but very challenging
This is an excellent book -- definitely a classic. Despite the name there is more physics, especially quantum physics, material than traditional chemistry, but it is an excellent read with some very deep insights into the nature of the universe.
This is an excellent book -- definitely a classic. Despite the name there is more physics, especially quantum physics, material than traditional chemistry, but it is an excellent read with some very deep insights into the nature of the universe.
May 31, 2018
From the father of bond theory, and two time Noel Prize winner (Chemistry and Peace) ... Cannot do better.
November 14, 2018
Great intro!
Read
May 3, 2020good book
July 8, 2016
I got a copy of this classic text as I approached graduation with my BS in chemistry in 2008. I found Pauling's writing style lucid but as I skimmed the book I was a little shocked that some principles were included in this 'general chemistry' book that I didn't encounter until taking supplement physics courses or physical chemistry. Pauling had high expectations of his students.
November 25, 2008
This book has all the good secrets.
January 8, 2018
For the price (cheap), it is a good reference book. Not necessarily for the beginner, though.
Read
August 2, 2012the chemist is talking
November 12, 2013
this book will help me in my studies especially learning my chemistry.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 10, 2014
Still useful after all these years.
May 5, 2015
Simply the best chemistry book
Read
May 27, 2015nice
March 25, 2016
THE chemistry text.
Currently reading
March 21, 2016mastering chemistry
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
June 10, 2016j;j
Read
November 12, 2013It's hard to understand,but i will try my best to catch it all.
Read
December 28, 2017best of all
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.