Just because you can READ a history book does not mean you can WRITE a history book. And some people shouldn't write at all, like this author.

The only reason I even attempted to read this book was to see how bad the train wreck was going to be. There will never be a train or train track here ever again. It was bad. It was beyond bad. If I were to go further with this I would be insulting the reader and wasting good words on junk.

First, the writing. Okay, it wasn't writing. It was a bad comedy act in print. Or an editorial hit piece against history. No, just a really bad comedy act trying too hard to be funny. You don't need to treat history as a subject that everyone hates and so the author decides to make it interesting by treating it as if everything was really just a punch line waiting to happen.

Two, well more on the writing, somewhat. History texts deal with, well, I don't know, history. At least, I thought so. I could be wrong. And that involves quoting sources, listing sources in a bibliography, stating facts, and if starting opinions, backing them up with support and quotes. And dealing with actual history, that's a big one. This was a giant book report on books the author read that he combined together and called it a book.

Three, I gave up on this book. It was just horrible. I just wanted to throw it across the room at all the snotty assumptions and lack of citations. It was giving me a headache.

All in all: DO NOT READ THIS BOOK. Save your money or the trip to the library. There are better books out there about this time in English history. Remember: just because you read a history book does not make you a historian. ( )

Wisecracks throughout make this a fun read, but it’s like taking facts from a firehose. You really should have some understanding of English history to get some idea of what’s going on. Even then, he jumps around a lot and often without transition. He has sacrificed an understandable narrative for his goal for this to be a “very very short” history. ( )