Bullet point history - boring!

It is like someone reading an encyclopaedia of events in a very poor reporting style.

The state the facts and sometimes his basis, but this is not an audio-book.


It like he gathered all the information in the various time periods and made each chapter a report on that topic.
In some chapters they go back over the same time-period for different topics, so you go forward with one chapter into the 1920s, then then another chapter goes prior to that time-period, and then back again to the 1920s; happens repeatedly, very confusing.


I understand the topics were different, but not sure great historian writers would have done it like this?
It was like he was writing multiple books for each chapters, that was too short and just not well written.

Bullet point history - boring. Some sentences dictated with poor grammar, clipped sentences; "Queen, Empress"?. Just no story-telling. No real objective balance, preferences for some characters than others without a back story. No transition, just articles factually meshed,horribly together, appears regurgitated from other's work

It is like a dull college dissertation, I would give it a "C-". It is poor even for reporting or journalistic reporting.

The publisher editor should have insisted on a consistent theme that stitches together, gracefully rather staccato/bullet-point like - one story the people, and the characters behind it.

You compare this to a Max Hastings books, you can see that this person is a researcher, but really doesn't have the craft like Max Hastings in telling a story

The publishers should have made sure that the grammar was correct prior to the narration, and reviewed the style and content.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!