Though research on loneliness and loss often centers on the individual, K. D. M. Snell connects these feelings to the decline of community and asks what implications this diminution may have for the future. In many ways a natural progression of his earlier work Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales 1700–1950 (2006), with its focus on rural communities, Spirits of Community: English Senses of Belonging and Loss, 1750–2000 makes an argument for the ongoing importance of community as a concept through analysis of past relics, such as parish church community newspapers, magazines, letters, art, and literature. In particular, Snell contends that the nature of past generations’ interactions with community is often grossly misunderstood, leading to a misdirection of nostalgia, which in turn affects feelings of loss and loneliness. Using an impressive range of sources, Snell creates a compelling case for reevaluating how community is defined and interpreted and what changes in these definitions mean to the future of community.

One notable theme throughout the work is the idea of spatial community. Early in the introduction, Snell uses an interesting diagram of spheres to represent communities that have interacted in the past and to indicate how those spheres of community were interconnected. The first picture of interlocking spheres shows how all communities (such as church, parish, friends) interacted spatially in some manner. A second diagram suggests that today the individual is what connects different types of communities that rarely interact, while the last image shows how the individual will be (if not so already) separate in the future, provisionally attached to many different communities with no spatial connection, apt to join communities (and separate from them) as the need arises. The introduction also offers clear definitions of “friendship” and “community” to help the reader understand the author's historical approach. As is hinted in the introduction and then completed in the conclusion, the modern ideas of “friends” and “community” are in flux, in part due to technology. Whereas in the past friendships could be considered spatial, today and in the future, friendship is more fluid, allowing for more “free-floating choices and attachments” (241). This comparison leads to the realization of a more historical approach to friendship based on a person's need rather than proximity and deep-rooted connection, a reorientation that will affect any discussion of loss and loneliness. Snell argues for the purpose of nostalgia and a redefinition of what is actually “lost” in the move to a more individualistic and private community.

Though the focus of the book is the change of community and what is lost, Snell is rather upbeat about how small communities, such as churches, use technology in positive ways. One such positive example appears in the chapter “Parochial Globalization,” where he connects church attendance with an improvement in literacy due to parish magazines. Tracing the history of local church publications leads to an appreciation of how community has been connected, through the long-distance mailings of the publications, in ways that might have been absent before. This connection parallels uses of social media and other technologies to foster community today.

In conjunction with this chapter, Snell examines the interface of the working class and art in the chapter “The Migrant Poor in Painting.” Snell argues that the focus on representation, especially by George Morland's use of “social realism,” connects to the concept of rural community and isolation. Along with this discussion is a discussion of how painters such as Thomas Gainsborough changed ideas surrounding the English poor, in particular through Gainsborough's Cornard Wood (c. 1746–48), later known as Gainsborough's Forest after 1790. The historical analysis of the paintings adds an interesting dimension to the discussion of loneliness and community. Some of the images offer lonely interpretations of class systems, or a connection to otherness, as is seen in the separation of working-class subjects from the center of frames. The foreground and background become an important part of the chapter's conclusion, where Snell does an excellent job connecting the themes of the chapter to the ethos of the book.

Of particular interest is the fifth chapter, “Thomas Hardy and Community.” Here, Snell uses examples from Under the Greenwood Tree (1872) and Jude the Obscure (1895) as examples of Hardy's lament of the loss of community. Parish life is also important in this chapter, as well as a connection between the rural community and the urban, as is associated in the previous chapters on parish life and art. As in all chapters of this work, the perception of community and loss is apparent.

Following these chapters Snell moves to the modern era, where rural-life decay is arguably more focused. Again, the idea of working class-community and agrarian community are examples of how the concept of what is being lost is drastically changing. Chapter 7, “James Wentworth Day and Conservative Ideas of Community,” serves as bridge to later ideas on community loss and what Snell points out as a period of drastic change to the rural and farming areas from 1901 to 1980. Adrian Bell becomes one of the final voices on community loss and loneliness. The last chapter, “Community Individualized,” is the natural (if paradoxically titled) conclusion to Snell's fascinating argument. It offers an interesting summary of community losses and its own lament for them.

Though Snell's book contributes important insight for historians of community, rural life, and loss, it also offers an interesting connection of art and literature through the centuries. Many chapters offer a historically useful perspective on literature. Also of note is the influence of the church through printed media. Most important is the tracing of the movement from “losing” community as a part of identity to its loss. Snell's overall theoretical approach offers a unique perspective on ways to discuss issues of loss and loneliness to an analysis of loss in media and community.