England: A History

Rating: 2 Stars

Ugh. This was a tough one to get through. The history of England is complicated to begin with. England as we know it didn't really exist until Athelstan, grandson of my buddy Alfred the Great. And even then, it wasn't exactly England yet. It kind of starts with the Norman Conquest of Anglo-Saxon England and then glosses over all the best parts of the island's history that I care about. There was no mention whatsoever of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a mere paragraph about Richard I, and a total whitewashing of John. While I am not a huge fan of ALL Plantagenets, they are highly intriguing and they did rule England for 300 years. Yet, by 40% of the book, we are already at the dawn of Stuart rule by James VI/I. This might seem like a lot at first being devoted to the Plantagenets and Tudors, but you must also consider the fact that the book ends after World War II. That's something else I can't understand but, whatever. It is hardly even worth delving into.

As an aside, it has never been lost on me that the Tudors are in fact, and always have been, Welsh - not English. yet the English seem to overlook this now? And then at the same time looked down on the Welsh? Another thing that has never made any sense to me. 

This quote I did appreciate, in regards to the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots: "...Elizabeth managed to look the other way until the deed was done, and like a true daughter of her house, she saw to it that her secretary, William Davison, took the blame for the execution of Mary's death warrant" (30%). Yep, exactly. Elizabeth is the WORST. The author did not justice to Mary Tudor either, but he seems to approve a bit more of Elizabeth. Either way, nothing he says is particularly positive about any of them.

Where he really lost me: at 48% he called Cromwell the 'greatest Englishman of his century'. Um. No.

Around 55%, the only things keeping me going were: 1) it was written so generally that it was still an incredibly breezy read. It was not terribly specific, and not very detailed either. 2) At the time I was also operating under the assumption that eventually we'd get to the House of Windsor, William, and Harry. Especially Harry. You can imagine my disappointment then when, as I mentioned earlier, the books ends after WWII.

89%: Blah Blah British Imperialism, snooooze.

So, I guess have at it but I can't say I really recommend this one. The history of England is far too vast and complicated for this slim a volume - even one that ends after WWII. Don't take this one too seriously if you do give it a shot.

The English and Their History

Rating: 3 Stars

Rating:

This book is exhausting. So exhausting, in fact, that I am not even sure I can review it properly. I have read more than my fair share of books. One might say reading is my 'thing'. I am especially fond of that little island now called England and its amazing history, going way back to the Iron Age people, through Roman Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Plantagenets, and the Tudors. Beyond that, my interest starts to wane. In the past with books about the history of England, I have always given up a bit after James VI/I. Sometimes I make it through the execution of his son, Charles I, but rarely. I vowed this time, with this one, to make it through. And so I did. Barely.

So, this one began in what is typically still referred to as the Dark Ages, despite our knowledge of the time growing more clear all the time with new discoveries. The Anglo-Saxons and Alfred are possibly my most favorite of the eras in England's history, so it is always nice to see him given his due. Alfred is, after all, the only king in the country's history to be called 'the Great'.

My concerns with the book come very early on though, as I feel there were many aspects of England's history that were glossed over or not mentioned at all from those early years, in favor of much more material covering the last two hundred years. For example, while we see Edgar Aetheling mentioned, there is almost zilch about his grandfather Edmund Ironside and his brief co-reign with Cnut - it is generally thought that Edmund was murdered by or on Cnut's orders so he could assume complete power. Subsequently there is nothing about Ironside's sons who were spirited out of the country and Cnut's reach. That in itself is a fascinating story and deserved a place. The course of history might look very different for England had someone aside from William I become king. There were many other times that this lack of detail jumped out at me - perhaps because these are among the time periods I know best. The author calls the circumstances of William II's (William Rufus) death 'mysterious', but does not fully elaborate. It is considered mysterious for a number of reasons, considering he was shot in the chest with an arrow and the culprit left the scene immediately - while Henry I (his younger brother, the youngest son) headed straight for the treasury to secure it and the crown, effectively stealing it from Robert who was next in line. Further more, it was strange to me that the author considered Matilda (Henry I's daughter) the antagonist in the civil war between her and her cousin Stephen. When Matilda's brother Henry died on the White Ship, she became the only legitimate heir. At least twice Henry I made his nobles swear an oath to support Matilda's claim as queen, but given the fact that there had never been a queen who ruled in her own right, as soon as Henry I was dead they naturally (for the time period) looked elsewhere. Stephen was the usurper, the antagonist, though Matilda certainly did herself no favors by alienating some who she needed support from. In the end, Stephen agreed for Matilda's son to become king as Henry II, despite Stephen having a son of his own. So began the 300 year rule of the Plantagenets.

There was very little attention given to another of my favorites - Eleanor of Aquitaine. She is hardly mentioned, and only as Henry II's wife. We get a glimpse but that is it and no where does it say that without her gathering the ransom, her son Richard I would likely never have been released from prison. While Richard cared very little for England and preferred his lands in Aquitaine, or the Holy Land on Crusade, him being overthrown by John even earlier could have caused even more destruction.

By the time we get to Elizabeth, all of my favorite periods were covered. This amount to roughly 200 pages out of nearly 900 (1,000 if you count the end notes, index, etc). For the rest of the time it was pretty rough going for me, because it just does not hold my interest the way early England does. I truly don't even understand it myself, how I can be totally enthralled by the first 1,600 years and not care one iota about the last 400. But I was determined to slog on through. As a result, it took me a while and I frequently set it aside for something else. I have to be quite honest and admit I skimmed the Industrial Revolution. Glad it happened and all, but it is a terrible snooze to read about.

I found the Victorian era more interesting to read about this time around, so perhaps there is hope for that in the future. World War I and World War II were great reads from the English perspective, as anything I have read about them in the past have been strictly from an American viewpoint. Throughout the book there were tons of maps to aid the reader with the text, which I have always found especially helpful when discussing battles and troop movements. My only real complaint about WWI material involves the omission of Gavrilo Princip. You may not recognize the name, as so often he is simply referred to as 'the assassin of Archduke Franz Ferdinand'. I feel like it is a disservice to history that his name is routinely ignored. Like it or not, for better or worse, hi actions set of a chain of events that culminated in The Great War, which in turn lead directly to WWII.

I can't speak for the accuracy of the rest of the text due to my limited knowledge of those eras, but I at least found them somewhat engaging - enough to continue reading anyway. This is certainly not a book I would consider as my first if I knew nothing about England's history. It is quite the endeavor and not one to enter into lightly if you are looking for a quick read. On the other hand, if you are more interested in the time periods after the Tudors that are less interesting to me, then this may just be the book for you, as that is the bulk of the material.

A History of Civilization in 50 Disasters

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

I have this habit of going through the new release section of the public library catalog and putting a bunch of books on hold that I am interested in. Half the time, the books end up being YA/juvenile, despite me clicking specifically on the history section on the adult list. Sometimes I read the book anyway and this is just such an occasion.

First, I love these kinds of history lessons, these sort of lists that look at some sub-section of human history and how those pieces matter and come together to form one aspect - another good one is 'The History of the World in 100 Objects'. Very interesting.

Anyway, despite being about a depressing subject matter, the content was highly interesting and worked well for an adult, as easily as it would for a YA reader. The book covers a wide range of topics, from earthquakes, plague, volcanoes, to a molasses flood. For real. A flood of molasses. It would be funny if people had not died. I guess the phrase "Slower than molasses in winter" is not really accurate after all. I don't say this to be cheeky, I had never heard of this disaster and it was very interesting, I love that Santorini, the burning of Rome, and Pompeii were included, though the majority of the disasters that the author focused on were 13th century and beyond. This makes sense of course, those darn dinosaurs Neanderthals never bothered to write anything down.

Each chapter is between two and four pages long, so not overly detailed for the intended audience, but still giving enough information to keep the reader interested. This would be a great resource for research, or for a reluctant reader to find topics that might be of interest to them. In addition, there are a few further resources - a glossary for readers who might be unfamiliar with the terms in the book, and additional resources related to each topic, as well as a brief introduction to the research process. There are also tons of maps and photos throughout, great color photos that add to the content.

I like this series, I think it is an interesting way to hook those readers who have had a hard time finding things that they want to read about. Short chapters, with addition resources if they do find something of interest.

My only real, tiny complaint is in the form of the 50th disaster - it was actually called 'Disaster in the Making' and discussed climate change in our century and the possible ensuing consequences that will come if we do not reverse course and try to get global warming under control. So really, this is not actually a disaster that has happened, but one that is in the process of happening as I type this review. And even then, this is not major - more of an aside.

I recommend this both for those YA readers looking for something engaging, and those who are interested in learning more about these types of disasters and how they have impacted our history.

Foundation: The History of England from its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors

Rating: 1.5 Stars

Review:

I don't even.

I can't even begin to explain how disappointed I am in this book and Ackroyd's work here. I am actually kind of angry about this book. Normally he is an author I enjoy, having read several of his other titles (The Thames, Chaucer, etc). I so looked forward to this one as this book literally covered almost my entire interest in England.

What makes this disappointment even worse is how promising it even starts out. It begins with a delightful romp through Roman Britain and Boudicca's destructive power (again I say, Eleanor is so lucky I discovered Eleanor of Aquitaine before Boudicca, and the latter is just a nickname). I even enjoyed most of the bits about those nasty Angles and Saxons who were terribly destructive themselves, but eventually manage to evolve into my dear Anglo-Saxons.

When Ackroyd gets specifically to Alfred, king of Wessex, the Angles and the Saxons - Alfred the Great, my first issue comes to light. While it is generally acknowledged that yes, Alfred's grandson Athelstan is the first king of England (England as a whole, not an island of individual kingdoms - Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, etc), Alfred's accomplishments can not be overlooked. I mean, come on, he remains the only king to ever be referred to as 'the Great'. Alfred set up the kingdom to become successful and united; had he not beaten back the Danes, encouraged reading, writing and education in general, or written down the laws of the land, England could have taken a very different course. Let's give him a little more credit here. There would be no England without Alfred.

The next big flag came when the death of Edmund Ironside was completely glossed over. When Edmund and Cnut were basically co-kings, and then within a few months Edmund was dead, it is generally thought that he was murdered so Cnut could rule alone. Edmund's two sons, Edward and Edmund, were spirited out of the country and Cnut's reach. While the son Edmund also died, sometime in exile in Hungary, Edward eventually returned to England, the potential successor of Edward the Confessor. However, within a few days of his landing in England, he was murdered, which set the course for the invasion of the Normans and The Conquest by William I. I have always felt like this is an important piece of the puzzle, as at this point England's history could have been drastically altered and the Anglo-Saxon line (albeit with a strong injection of Hungarian, due to Edward the Exile's decades away from home) might have continued for a long time. No Normans would mean no Plantagenets, which in itself would also have been tragic. But that is another story. It confuses me as to why Ackroyd would not present this information, but perhaps I view it as more important than it actually is.

Speaking of Edward the Confessor now, Ackroyd makes a statement to the effect of Edward choosing his successor as he neared death. The king did not choose his successor though, the next king was chosen and anointed by the Witan, so Edward could not leave his crown to anyone as was stated. The Witan chose Harold, so it would not have mattered if Edward has promised William and/or that Harold might have sworn an oath to uphold William's claim.

As we move through the beginnings of the Norman kings right before the Plantagenet dynasty dawns, there is another slew of missing and/or mis-information. Ackroyd seems to accept almost unequivocally that William II's death was an accident, despite his own brother's actions after his death - and that fact that his hunting companion who 'accidentally' shot him reportedly immediately left the scene. Upon learning his brother had been shot on their hunting outing, Henry immediately rode off to secure the treasury - surely a sign that he might have known something? The mishandling of the Norman kings continues with Stephen. Stephen was nephew to Henry I. Henry I had made his nobles swear an oath to support his daughter Matilda as queen, as his only legitimate son had died when The White Ship sank years earlier. Naturally when Henry I died and Stephen claimed the throne, no one argued because England had never had a queen rule and were not about to start. Ackroyd states that Stephen was crowned in 1135 but that it was not until 1139 that Matilda arrived to "claim her country". That is by and far one of the biggest issues with this book - there is no detail or support as to WHY it took so long for Matilda to land on English shores. She was married to Geoffrey, duke of Anjou. It was not as though she was thousands of miles away, she was across the Channel. Some kind of explanation for her actions would have been welcome, instead of just glossing over it as was done with Ironside's death a few centuries earlier. Ackroyd also fails to mention that Stephen had a son, who was passed over in the line of succession for Matilda's son (Henry II) to bring an end to their brutal civil war.

I was tempted to quit when Eleanor of Aquitaine was almost completely whitewashed from England's history. I mean, seriously. She was important, despite Ackroyd's statement of Eleanor "severing herself from the king". In truth she retreated to her own estates as the king became involved with his beloved mistress Rosamund Clifford, then was imprisoned for fifteen years for inciting their sons into rebellion. More than once. As we continue along with the Plantagenets, Ackroyd seems baffled by the fact that King John and Richard III are often associated. My guess would be they are associated often in peoples' minds because they both murdered children to get their thrones. Ackroyd does address the fact that Arthur (Geoffrey's son), John's nephew, was actively campaigning against him and actually besieging Eleanor at Mirebeau when he was captured. At the time Arthur was fifteen, and seeing as how he was active in the battle I see Ackroyd's claim that he essentially became a prisoner of war so to speak when John captured him. The fact remains however, that Richard I had named Arthur as his heir to the throne, seeing as how their deceased brother Geoffrey was older than John (the spoiled baby of the family), and thus had a better claim. Not to mention John was super shady and cruel and not at all fit to be king. So yeah, killing the rightful kings who happened to also be children is what will always link them, no matter how Ackroyd wants to say this was not true in John's case.

I seriously considered quitting a second time when I realized I had made it all the way to the reign of Henry III (John's son) and had not even caught a swift glimpse of William Marshal, the greatest knight in the history of England. I double checked the index just to make sure my eyes were not deceiving me, but sure enough, he is no where to be found.

I am almost tempted to not even bother with reviewing the chapters relating to Richard III. This book was published in 2011, so it is no fault of Ackroyd's that Richard's remains had not yet been discovered (Phillipa Langley wouldn't be bawling her eyes out on national television for a while yet, upon discovering that he did in fact have a crooked spine). However, the problem is he claims such authority, so sure that Richard's remains had been scattered or thrown in the river. He states this as fact, not the speculation they need to appropriately be described as. For example, on page 416 Ackroyd says, "The king, for example, was not a hunchback. As a result of strenuous martial training one arm and shoulder were overdeveloped, thus leading to a slight unbalance but nothing more." Again, while the author could not have known that within a short time the world would know that, in fact, Richard did have a significant curvature of the spine, he certainly could have addressed this more responsibly.

There are some positives here. Despite everything I have said thus far, though overall I was greatly disappointed, there is still some good. While the longer chapters detail what Ackroyd wants the reader to know with his take on England's history, he also includes shorter chapters throughout that deal with daily life on the island, from food, to religion, to dwellings, etc. At first these chapters annoyed me because it made the book feel a bit disjointed, going back and forth from general to specific history. But the more I read, the more I began to enjoy them. However if I had to choose between more details on the kings and queens, or these little chapters, hands-down I would opt for the former. I believe this is the first of four books. If Ackroyd wanted to present a clearer picture of England by including these chapters, perhaps he should have planned to write five books in the series then to make room for all the facts and information he left out.

I feel like I have made my point here with some of the biggest issues with the book. Basically, Ackroyd has taken some of the most interesting pieces of history and condensed them down into little bite sized morsels for popular consumption. The problem with that is that many of these stories are so complex and deserve to be fleshed out to explore all facets. That is how you really get the big picture, really understand how England became England. This is at times sensational and gossipy, ignoring more plausible theories for wild claims (hello, Edward II). It is as though this is a completely different author than I am used to reading. It is disheartening, because I was looking forward to the second book, which of course focuses on the Tudors, as this one concludes with Henry VII's reign. I can by no means recommend this as the first book for anyone to read who does not already have background knowledge, as I would hate for anyone to read this and think it is all accurate. There is a decent bibliography that I plan exploring further to see how Ackroyd came to some of the conclusions that he did. Perhaps then I will better understand his view, and then be able to move on to the second book with a little more ease.

The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings

Edited by Peter Sawyer

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

I really enjoyed this collections of essays for a number of reasons. My primary level of interest in is Anglo-Saxon England and the Wessex kings especially - Alfred the Great is great for a reason (and the only king of England with this descriptor!) I also enjoy learning about the Vikings, as so much of the history of Norway, Iceland, and Greenland was only passed down from one generation to the next by word of mouth. What we do have written is truly a treasure, as these people and cultures can come alive to us once again by these words.

The text is a series of essays. Each author focused on their own area of interest, ranging from the Vikings in England, the end of he Viking age, Vikings in Russia, the ships, and so on. While I am not really interested in the ships themselves, or learning about maritime travel, that essay still help valuable information. One essay I found especially interesting was 'Religions Old and New', which discusses the old religion of the Vikings and their gods and the advent of Christianity. Greenland and Iceland were of particular interest too, not only because it is amazing that the ships were able to travel that far, but even beyond to reach North America - long before Columbus and his germ warfare. I would love to see the settlement ruins someday, and it is definitely on my bucket list. The essay focusing on Ireland, etc. was of great interest as well, as I have been to Dublin. Upon my visit with Mom in 2010, I had no idea that the Vikings had ruled Dublin for so long and that it was an area of focus for them. When visiting Dublin Castle on one of our tours, we were able to go below street level to see what remained of not only the medieval castle from the 13th century, but the earthen bank/stone wall of the original Viking town. Photographs belong to me and were taking in Dublin in July of 2010.

Helpful info to start with (2010) Unfortunately I don't have a great shot of the remains of anything but the medieval castle.

Overall, while some of the essays were a bit more dry than others, I enjoyed this collection. Certainly recommended for those interested in various aspects of life as a Viking.

London: A History

Author: Francis Sheppard

Rating: 3.5 Stars

Review:

Naturally I found the early sections of the book far more interesting, as they pertained to the periods in England's history that I know and love so well. Unfortunately those sections as a whole only made up the first roughly third of the book, so it took a little more willpower to continue after saying goodbye to my beloved Anglo-Saxons, Plantagenets, and Tudors in regards to their relationships with London. I generally enjoy city biographies but I think what made this one so different for me is that I am also highly interested in very specific time periods in England, so later chapters (mainly from the Stuarts after James I and beyond) felt much heavier and slower to me, despite of course the writing style changing not at all.

It is interesting to me to watch cities slowly evolve into the places we know them as today. Having been to London myself, albeit an incredibly short venture due to a long delay out of Edinburgh, I can't even imagine it being anything than the bustling city it is today. I can't wait to go back and spend the time there that the city deserves, to see all the places still standing where so many of these great and terrible leaders stood, worked, slept, etc.

While the Victorian and Edwardian eras were more than a bit sluggish for me, my interest was piqued at the transformation of the city during the German air raids of WWII. So much of my past study of WWII focused on Germany, I truly had no idea the devastation and loss of life inflicted on London. It amazes me that so many palaces and castles survived, while countless citizens were left homeless. I can't even imagine sleeping in a bunk bed in the subway. Like many, I might have just taken the risk of sleeping at home.

Overall, this is a highly researched, thus very academic, work. At times even the periods of most interest to me were dry. Still, it's very informative and I can say I do recommend it.

Alfred the Great: The Man Who Made England

Rating: 5 Stars

Review:

Anglo-Saxon England might be the most intriguing period for me in the history of the country. I have often wondered how different the world might be had England remained in the hands of King Harold and the Norman invasion thwarted. The possibilities are interesting. This time period is also frustrating, as there is very little evidence left of these great people, particularly from Alfred's time and before. The scraps of information and rare objects we do have are precious; it saddens me to think that what is now left of the mortal remains of this great king, the man who united the warring kingdoms into what would become England and fought off the Vikings time and again, are scattered somewhere in the soil among the modern buildings of Winchester.

Now, onto the book itself...

Everyone knows the (highly likely untrue) story of England's King Alfred, deprived of his throne and set to wander his lands as a fugitive, taking refuge with a poor swineherd. Here he is either reading a book or lost in thought by the fire, only to be rebuked by the swineherd's wife for letting the cakes burn. Alfred accepts the scolding, unrecognized by his own subjects as their former, but true, king.

It's a highly romanticized story of Alfred's time away from his throne, but one the author touches on time and again when noting the importance of and connection to religion in this time period. Christians at this time still believed wholeheartedly in the daily miracles of God, in a time where men we now call saints were living, breathing people among them. I have not read extensively about Alfred yet, though I have read quite a bit about Anglo-Saxon England in general, so I am not yet sure if this is the author's own conclusion, or the conclusion reached by scholars before him, but he refers to this story as a kind of metaphor for England as a whole. Early in Alfred's reign, in the four years of relative peace before the Vikings again returned and betrayal within Alfred's own court enabled the witan to depose him, Alfred did not do all he might have in order to prepare for the repeated attacks that could only be held off with the Danegeld for so long. The conclusion is that this story is a metaphor for Alfred's reign in that time - he didn't pay attention like he should have so the cakes burned, much like he did not take care to fortify his fledgling kingdom, and so it too burned.

It is amazing to me how, though Alfred lived and died in what would be considered the end of the 'Dark Ages', a significant portion of his time and funds were directed toward learning and educating his people. He was a major supporter of translating great works for his people to read in their native tongue - English. He even sent an item (called an æstel) with these books when they were distributed to every bishopric - one of which was found in the late 1600s - which has today been concluded that its possible function was a pointer or a bookmark. 

(Property of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford)

(Property of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford; the inscription on the side reads: 'Alfred Ordered/Had Me Made' - I have read different translations using either word)

King Alfred felt that literature and education was imperative to the survival of his kingdom. I of course don't mean education as we know it today: all the good little boys and girls in there desks with pencils sharpened, ready to absorb knowledge. I mean in the sense that he felt it was important for the men governing the burhs in his name to be learned men so that they would be able to read his laws, to dispense justice correctly and appropriately, and for all people to have access to the great books. And while it is again highly unlikely that he actually learned Latin in a single day, Alfred did set about educating himself as well and learned the already-dead language.

Whether you have read about Alfred before or this is your first foray into the arena, this is a fantastic read. It is written in such a way that it is accessible both to the lay reader looking for a 'popular history', as well as those who have background knowledge already and would be considered more academic. It chronicles the years and events leading up to Alfred's birth and sets the stage for this king to become, well, great. There's everything you would expect from the time period - Vikings raids, the warring kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, etc., betrayal, tragedy, and triumph. I highly recommend this one.

The Picts and the Scots

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

I found this slim volume to be very informative, given that it was first published in 1993 and there have been new editions since then - something I did not know when I first found it at the library. Prior to, I had no real knowledge of the Picts or Scots, aside from bits and pieces. I did not realize their cultures lasted so long, into the 11th century.

I find the so-called Dark Ages so fascinating; how can any period truly be dark, when it produced the likes of the Book of Kells (which I was lucky enough to have seen when I was in Dublin in 2010! So beautiful. And as an aside, the Trinity College Library, wow. I thought I had died and gone to Heaven.)

I would certainly be interested to see what information might be included in any updated versions of this book and plan to read others on these subjects as well. The only thing I really wanted from this book was more color photographs. It is hard to see some of the mounds and such in a black and white photo, especially if you are unfamiliar with terminology and not quite sure what you are looking at. Otherwise, no major complaints. Recommended read!

*****While you are not actually allowed to take pictures of the Book of Kells, here are a few photos from Trinity College in Dublin where the book is on display. All photos were taken by me in July of 2010 in Dublin, Ireland.

First finding our way around...

We've reached the library!

I had to capture the replicated artwork of the book wherever I could, since I knew pictures of the actual book were not permitted.

Entering the exhibit. So worth the time. It is a must see!

King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

First and foremost, any digging at this point to find Arthur will only result in conjecture. It's been too long and any evidence is almost certainly long gone. However, the author is convincing in that I'm now quite sure an Arthur did exist. Not as we think of Arthur in mythology now, the Once and Future King who will some day awaken and reclaim his throne, but a living, breathing warrior king who united his people (as best he could) against the invaders.

I found this a rather easy read and enjoyed it. I also enjoyed that the author didn't aim for one theory, ignore others, and make the evidence fit what he thinks. He explored several options, while naturally indicating which one makes the most sense to him. Nicely done.

The Edge of the World: A Cultural History of the North Sea and the Transformation of Europe

Rating: 3 Stars

Review:

This is a strange book and that makes it difficult to review in the classical sense. There is a wealth of information in general and I found that information very interesting. It was hard to follow at certain times in that the book is arranged by topic instead of chronologically, but overall was not a hindrance. My main issue comes from the chapters themselves, where we start out on the topic give in the chapter title and then leaps and bounds later, we land on entirely different topics. Some were much more tightly woven together than others, which leaves you sometimes with the sense of having skipped pages, when in fact you did not.

Despite that issue, I'd still recommend giving this one a chance. As I said, there's a ton of interesting info - perhaps just not quite all the info you're expecting.