Originally Posted by deirdra

The book is much shorter than GCBC, but I would not call it concise. I'm half way though it, and there is a lot of interesting new information, but it is the writing style, not the science, that is dense, convoluted and repetitive. His other two books and articles are much better written.

"three quarters of a century minus one" is not a concise way of saying "74 years"!

A good editor would have reduced the book to 200 non-repetitive, clear and on-point pages. I'm wondering if it was rushed to publication because its 8 years as a work in progress were up.