▁The ▁Wall ▁Street ▁Journal , ▁Simon ▁Win chester ▁said ▁the ▁book ▁was ▁" capt iv ating " ▁but ▁fault ed ▁Gran n ' s ▁cred ul ity , ▁especially ▁when ▁he ▁imag ined ▁that ▁he ▁was ▁seeing ▁the ▁ru ins ▁of ▁" Z ". ▁Win chester ▁writes , ▁" Oh , ▁please . ▁It ▁is ▁all ▁just ▁too ▁pat , ▁too ▁wanting ▁in ▁health y ▁ske ptic ism ." ▁Hugh ▁Thom son ▁writes ▁in ▁The ▁Washington ▁Post ▁that ▁Gran n ' s ▁book ▁is ▁" a ▁source ▁of ▁dist ort ion , ▁as ▁it ▁ign ores ▁or ▁infl ates ▁much ▁available ▁material ▁on ▁F aw c ett ." ▁ ▁John ▁Hem ming ▁dismiss ed ▁much ▁of ▁the ▁book ▁as ▁hyper bol ic ▁in ▁his ▁review ▁for ▁The ▁Times ▁Liter ary ▁Supp lement , ▁con cluding , ▁" It ▁is ▁a ▁pity ▁that ▁a ▁writer ▁as ▁good ▁as ▁Gran n ▁chose ▁to ▁study ▁this ▁un important , ▁disag ree able ▁and ▁ultimately ▁path etic ▁man . ▁It ▁is ▁an ▁even ▁greater ▁pity ▁that ▁he ▁decided ▁to ▁infl ate ▁and ▁dist ort ▁so ▁much ▁of ▁this ▁sad ▁story ." ▁Hem ming ▁ass ails ▁Gran n ▁for ▁d abb ling ▁in ▁the ▁" green - hell " ▁genre , ▁where ▁the ▁j ung le ▁is ▁dep icted ▁as ▁offering ▁some ▁new ▁le th al ▁threat ▁with ▁each ▁foot step . ▁The ▁review ▁notes ▁Gran n ' s ▁ex agger ations ▁of ▁F aw c ett ' s ▁explo its . ▁Hem ming ▁said ▁that ▁Gran n