Title: In the Wake of the Plague
Product review: This was a very disappointing book. Anything of historical interest is overshadowed by the fact that it is so poorly written, with the most cumbersome sentence structure and appallingly bad grammar. Cantor fails to show any back-up or scholarly research to justify his sweeping statements on history, e.g., he describes the Battle of Agincourt as "an easy win". He glibly calls John Lackland, a "manic-depressive", King Henry II, a "stud", and Princess Joan, "a top-drawer white girl" and "a product of Caucasian mastery". His erroneous definition of the word "chivalry", along with all his other quirky inaccuracies led me to such exasperation I had to put the book down half-way through. I recommend Daniel Defoe's "Journal of the Plague Year" for anyone interested in this subject. Don't waste your time on "In the Wake of the Plage". It is neither entertaining nor historically accurate. In fact, it seems to be either the work of an academic quack or a prankster.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
