I don't know which was more annoying: the book or its narrator.
First, the book. It is unbearably repetitious. The same events are described again and again. The author clearly does not believe that her readers have much in the way of an attention span. Moreover, whenever she cannot find evidence in the record for what she wants to say, she just guesses. Her "membership" in the "it could/should have happened" school of history is quite odd in a work first published by a distinguished academic press. Given the book's fundamentally interesting subject manner, this is a shame.
Second the narrator. Her breathless manner fits the book quite well. Avoid them both!
Report Inappropriate Content