such a wealth of information, much of which i've been literally craving to find in one concise spot for quite a while, but so awfully awfully written and awkwardly paced. then there's the fundamental concern for this (is it too early to call this a "style" unto itself? is it more than revisionism? hyper-revisionism?) "peoples history" business, ie if you plainly state your intentions and subjectivity as a historian and author, does that validate the blatant framing of historical incidents and characters to fit within that perspective?

a mixed bag? decidedly. a fantastic jumping-off point for further reading into any of the numerous case studies portrayed? most certainly.