San Francisco, CA United States | Member Since 2012
I read great insights in-between long stretches of filler text. I would have accepted more bottom line facts and less line item reporting. I got bored while listening to passages describing the political play-by-plays that didn't serve to make the insights any clearer. It would have been better to highlight the original content and annotate details that amount to [paraphrasing] "...so and so met but didn't have quorum".
The reader is articulate with a marvelous voice. Still, he tended to report the text like it was in a teleprompter. His pace and narrow dynamic range disappointed my expectations for a new presentation of the rise of Rome. He was very understandable, quick, and authoritative but would like to have heard some more wonder in the storytelling.
Everitt's insights and original content is superb. The history goes in and out of scope and detail with some irregularity. Sometimes there were long sections of history that didn't seem necessary in such exhaustive detail. There is no detail too precise so long as it is followed with an insight that required that detail. I'm glad to have read it, though I might be wary of another long read by Chafer.
Report Inappropriate Content