Negative Positive
Title: weak scholarship, at best
Review: Hoping to find a modern analysis of Genghis Khan, I found myself increasingly startled by the willful lack of scholarship in this work. The writer set out to paint a revisionist account of Mongol rule, and he carelessly bends facts to support his thesis. The mix of anachronism and selective interpretation of his sources is shocking. One example is is reference to "Michael Paris", who he chooses to quote when it suites him, only to question the integrity of this source when the narrative runs counter to his intention to show the Mongols of the source of modern thought, including the Renaissance(?!)
Is the review positive or negative? 