This book contains frequently interesting historical facts within a completely incoherent logical framework. It's full of unnecessary repetitions and baffling inconsistencies. Definitions are stipulated then ignored. Claims are asserted without argument, then later contradicted. It reads like the first draft of a dissertation: one its supervisor rejected and sent back for further revision.

In general, I very much like the idea of interested amateurs engaging with 'scholarly' subjects. I don't mind the overgeneralizations, the narrative passages--I'm even willing to let the poor sourcing slide. But, for *Chrissakes*, at least know what your book is about, and let the reader in on it. Find a thesis. Here, the introduction is a concatenation of factoids and the conclusion is literally nonexistent; it just sort of trails off in a baffling nonsequitur. Even the title make no sense: it's not a position argued in the book, or quoted, or in any way otherwise referred to. As far as I can tell, it seems like controversy fodder developed by some algorithm from the publisher's marketing department.

For examples on how this kind of book can be written well (or at least better), see the work of Jared Diamond and Reza Aslan, off the top of my head.


( )