Negative Positive
Title: Alan Schom is an unabashed Napoleon-basher
Review: This book was terrible. Schom's biography of Napoleon was so one-sidedly critical of Napoleon while simultaneously praising the British that I couldn't finish it. While Napoleon certainly had his faults, this book seeks to construe any available fact the author was able to dig up as a sweeping indictment of the Emperor. Pages and pages of financial figures are twisted into stinging criticisms of Napoleon's excess and largess, while entirely ignoring historical context. The author wants you to believe that Bonaparte was uniquely corrupt, rather than a product of his age. Schom's tone is so overwhelmingly negative that the reader finds it difficult to believe that such an apparently incompetent person could have possibly conquered the entirety of Europe with such a "reasonable" enemy as Great Britain standing in the way.I strongly recommend you pass over this awful book.
Is the review positive or negative? 