Rating: 
Summary: Excerpted from Sacred Web 13, (www.sacredweb.com):
Review: Against the Modern World presents a new conceptual framework for understanding Traditionalism that is a significant departure from existing understandings. To evaluate this new conceptual framework it is important to understand some of the author's new definitions of existing terms and his newly coined terminology. He starts by defining the Perennial Philosophy as ". . . 'primal truth' [which] is more commonly known as the Perennial Philosophy, and belief in the existence of the Perennial Philosophy-a belief I will call 'Perennialism'-is one of the three central elements in the Traditionalist philosophy Guénon developed." ....This new definition of Traditionalist philosophy differs from the definitions in common use... It overemphasizes the importance of certain ideas found in Guénon and it ignores the contributions of other acknowledged founders of the Perennialist School, which though being based on the doctrinal principles that Guénon identified, went much further in forming a fully developed school of thought.
(Sedgwick)...defines a Traditionalist as a "person forming part of the movement deriving from René Guénon, or of a movement deriving from that movement [emphasis added]." The author's definition of a Traditionalist allows him to create a "List of Main Characters"... that lists "The Seven Most Important Traditionalists". Many readers will be very surprised to see the names of Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade and Alexander Dugin on this list, because many aspects of each of their writings deviate significantly from the other men's writings and from the central ideas of the Perennialist School. This is undoubtedly the first time that these three names have been included in a list of the seven most important Traditionalists....
A substantial part of Against the Modern World is devoted to the newly coined concept of "political Traditionalism", which includes the alleged political actions of men influenced to some extent by Guénon. However, the author acknowledges that Guénon's writings led to "spiritual activity" and that none of these political actions can be traced directly to Guénon. ...Sedgwick acknowledges that Evola "made the most dramatic modifications to Guénonian Traditionalism, which was essentially apolitical." ...(He) also acknowledges that Evola is typically not associated with Guénon because of his divergence from Guénon's point of view. In this section of the book Sedgwick frequently summarizes Guénon's point of view as "anti-modernist", but without sufficiently exploring either what characterizes "modernity" for Guénon or other Traditionalist philosophers or why and in what ways they may disagree with it. Nowhere does the book mention that many Perennialists actively resisted both Fascism and Nazism during World War II, that Guénon strongly disapproved of Fascism and Nazism and that Evola was an outspoken critic of both Fascism and Nazism...Sedgwick is the first author to link Traditionalism to these political movements and to coin the term "political Traditionalism". Let us hope that he is also the last to do so, since this alleged link to Traditionalism is sufficiently irrelevant to, and incompatible with, the common core principles identified with this school of thought that it does not merit further discussion.
The discussion of political Traditionalism highlights the confusion that results from the different ways that Sedgwick uses variations on the word "tradition". First, the author is not consistent in the way he uses his newly coined terminology and he often fails to provide sufficient definition. For example, he says, "the 'tradition' to which 'Traditionalism' refers is, in essence, the perennial religion." The use of these terms among established Traditionalist authors appears to be substantially different from Sedgwick's new definitions. The book also coins the terms "Guénonian Traditionalism" and "Traditionalist Perennialism", without definition. And...many of the so-called "Important Traditionalists" do not subscribe to elements in the book's definition of Traditionalist philosophy. To say the least then, the line of "political Traditionalists" that leads to Dugin bears no resemblance to the Perennialist School; the author's definition of Traditionalism is thus so expansive as to include entire movements that do not agree on central ideas. This reviewer concludes that Sedgwick has attempted to stretch the definition of a Traditionalist in unprecedented and inappropriate ways, while inaccurately narrowing the correct definition of Traditionalist philosophy. Such flaws in the conceptual framework of Sedgwick's scholarship cause it to fail by any measure.
The (book)... is written from an "omniscient" point of view that presents only those facts that support (Sedgwick's)... conclusions. The aspirations of true scholarship towards balance, accuracy of factual data, and objectivity are sacrificed to other, more "entertaining" goals. In addition, the author presents his opinions in absolute terms, without even considering the need either for verification or a discussion of alternative interpretations. Readers, however, will be inclined to question the author's impartiality when many of his generalizations and observations go beyond the selectively chosen facts and allegations in the book.
A large portion of Against the Modern World focuses on conflict among Guénon and several inheritors of his intellectual legacy insofar as these inheritors allegedly challenge Guénon, and then each other, for supremacy within the Traditionalist movement... The author summarily disregards their shared beliefs and instead accentuates only their alleged disagreements, all against the background of a list of supposed character flaws of almost every person profiled in the book...Because there are almost no references to, or analysis of, the writings or opinions of prominent Traditionalist authors, the uninformed reader is also left to wonder whether key Traditionalists would agree with the book's assertions. Readers already familiar with Traditionalism will have different questions because they will recognize that the author's opinions are contrary to the writings of leading Perennialists. The book therefore has many attributes not of a scholarly research work but of a historical novel because of its focus on conflict in personal relationships, its shallow and often confusing presentation of underlying concepts and its failure to present any substantive analysis.
Rating: 
Summary: A Substantial Reduction of My Ignorance
Review: Frankly, until reading Against the Modern World, I knew nothing about Traditionalism nor about the Perennial Philosophy which René Guénon (1886-1951) formulated, based on the basic truths of the world's great religions. I found Sedgwick's book so interesting because it offers answers to questions such as these:
1. How does Sedgwick define "modern"?
2. Why was Guénon so opposed to it?
3. Why has Traditionalism attracted such a wide, deep, and diverse following worldwide?
4. What is the relationship between Traditionalism and Orientalism?
5. What are the most relevant historical "streams and counterstreams"? Why?
6. What have been the nature and extent of cultural displacement?
7. What role has the tactic of (in italics) entrisme (end italics) played during the development of Traditionalism?
8. What is Frithjof Schuon's significance?
9. Why have various religious leaders rejected Traditionalism?
10. What are Traditionalism's sub-denominations and how do they differ from each other?
During the Religioscope interview (5 June 2004), Sedgwick explains that "the real reason that I became interested in Traditionalism as a subject for research was growing astonishment at the extent and importance of the movement. I remember spending an evening, shortly after the Internet had reached Egypt, looking through the various editions and translations of Guénon's works in European library catalogs-I couldn't believe it. And the more I looked, the more I found, and the more convinced I became that here was a story worth the telling." According to Sedgwick, advocates of Guénonian Traditionalism share a conviction that "the modern world is not the result of progress out of darkness but of descent into darkness, that this - the time we live in - is a last age, a pretty low point of a last age at that. What has been lost - and what needs to be recovered, reinstated even - is `tradition.' And tradition can be fairly precisely defined, as the truths that should have been handed down from time immemorial, approximately the perennial philosophy, the original [in italics] Ur-religion [end italics] of humanity."
Sedgwick goes on to suggest that "Traditionalists are those who want to recover what has been lost, and who also recognize the `true' nature of modernity. And recognize that one of the most important aspects of modernity is inversion - that the world sees the valuable as worthless and the worthless as valuable, the good as bad and bad as good. Guénon never saw a punk, but it would have made a lot of sense to him. And with that comes `counter-initiation' - religious movements that are actually irreligious, that actually lead away from what religion is meant to lead to. Again, Guénon would have nodded knowingly at certain recent developments in the Catholic Church. Against counter-initiation, the only thing left is real, genuine initiation - into traditional esoterism."
I have included these brief excerpts from the Religioscope interview because I think they help to indicate what Sedgwick's objectives were when he set out to examine Guénonian Traditionalism. In my opinion, he achieves all of them but it remains for others far better qualified than I am to comment on the validity of his assumptions and conclusions re the questions listed earlier. I do wish to reiterate that I am grateful for what I have learned about "Traditionalism and the secret intellectual history of the twentieth century."
Rating:
Summary: A triumph of marketing over scholarship
Review: In our opinion this book is a poor excuse for scholarship. The seminal work by Harry Oldmeadow on this same subject shows what a scholarly work should be - thorough, balanced and properly sourced. Interesting that Oldmeadow isn't listed in the Index.
This book appears to rely on hearsay and an incorrect understanding of Traditionlism to concoct a sensationlist work that is a marketer's dream but a true scholar's nightmare.
Rating:
Summary: Form without substance
Review: It is ironic that this book, which purports to expose the "secret intellectual history of the twentieth century" provides an excellent justification for the Traditionalist antipathy toward the profane character of contemporary Western society. The thinly veiled attitude of hostility to Traditionalism, and the patronizing contempt for its insights, with which the text is permeated, reveals far more about the author than about his subject matter. Masquerading as a work of scholarship, the book is little more than a collection of ad hominem attacks on some of the greatest intellectual and spiritual minds of the past hundred years, without any attempt to evaluate objectively the profound ideas developed by these individuals. It is more usual to find material of this sort - much of it based on gossip, rumor, and innuendo - in a supermarket tabloid than in a publication by Oxford University Press.
It is quite difficult to write a serious review of a book that contains nothing serious except pretensions. Despite its scholarly facade (69 pages of notes and an 8-page bibliography), the work is essentially form without substance. A few comments would perhaps be useful, however:
A large amount of space in Sedgwick's book is devoted to Frithjof Schuon and some of his closest associates, e.g., Titus Burckhardt, Leo Schaya, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Martin Lings, and Whitall Perry. A glance at the book's bibliography will indicate the extent of the author's research into their writings: Of the more than twenty books by Frithjof Schuon, only three appear there (in addition to the limited circulation autobiography with which Sedgwick is so preoccupied); Burckhardt's "Fez, City of Islam" is listed, but not his "Introduction to Sufism," or his "Alchemy: Science of the Cosmos, Science of the Soul," or any of his translations of Arabic texts; Schaya's "The Universal Meaning of the Kabbalah" is absent, as are Lings's "Book of Certainty" and Perry's monumental "Treasury of Traditional Wisdom," to name just a few of some of the most important contributions to Traditionalist literature. Although Sedgwick writes at length about "Etudes Traditionelles," he does not even mention "Studies in Comparative Religion," the most significant English-language Traditionalist journal, in which articles that were to become classics of Traditionalist thought were published.
It is amusing to see that, in the spirit of "the reign of quantity and the signs of the times," Sedgwick appears to equate the value of a book with its sales record. He says, in speaking of the 220 books by "Schuon and 23 other identified followers" published between 1950 and 1999, that "none [had] sales as impressive as Merton's 'Seven Storey Mountain' or Smith's 'Religions of Man.' " In the next paragraph, he notes that "only a few" of what he calls "hard" Traditionalist books "achieved significant sales" (p. 167). Sedgwick thus betrays his fundamental ignorance of the fact that Traditionalism is not and has never been a spiritual perspective intended for the "broad masses."
It would be possible quite easily to expose the cover-to-cover ignorance and trivialization of great ideas that Sedgwick so blatantly reveals in this book, but it would require far more space than Amazon permits for a review. From the standpoint of purely external appearance, though, it should be said that this book was appallingly edited and proofread. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that a publisher of such eminence as Oxford would permit the work to be printed as it was. There are typographical errors, incorrect diacritics (especially in Romanian), solecisms, questionable translations, omitted and duplicated words, misspelled names, and other inexcusable mistakes.
Mr. Sedgwick seems to be critical of the Traditionalist tendency to see beyond the forms of exoteric religion to the underlying divine truth present in the nucleus of those forms. The greatest mystics of all religions, however, have also been "guilty" of this:
Meister Eckhart says: "We shall find God in everything alike, and find God always alike in everything." And Ibn al-`Arabi writes: "My heart has opened unto every form: it is a pasture for gazelles, a cloister for Christian monks, a temple for idols, the Ka`ba of the pilgrim, the tables of the Torah, and the book of the Qur'an. I practice the religion of Love; in whatsoever directions its caravans advance, the religion of Love shall be my religion and my faith."
Rating: 
Summary: Kindness towards Spiritual Fascism
Review: Kindness towards Spiritual Fascism The truth is that this book is extremely generous to the traditionalists. In many ways Sedgwick has made this very extreme movement palatable for many who would never bother with it. It is important to have a history of these reactionary monarchist and neo-fascists. Sedgwick appears to be a bit of an apostate from traditionalism himself, to his credit. But yet, he is enough in their camp to still be one of them. He is extremely kind to them and overlooks their faults.
Anyone who has read deeply in the traditionalists books knows that they despise human rights and democracy and promote all sorts reactionary anti-scientific nonsense against the theory of evolution , the enlightenment and the Renaissance. They apologize for the Inquisition and want to return to the days when castes were rigid and priests ruled the world with black books. The traditionalist wants to go back to the days of the "divine rights of kings" If they could they would resurrect the ghosts of Torquemada, Savonarola, Richelieu and Joseph De Maistre. The latter men were all tyrants and killers of the far right. They are the type of men the traditionalists would like to see controlling the world. Sedgwick overlooks these facts.
No doubt to their relief, Sedgwick ignores many of the facts about the traditionalists and tries to picture them in the best possible light. For instance, he politely does not mention Guenon's truly insane book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, which perhaps stands with writing of the Marquis de Sade or William Burroughs as an example of rationality gone mad. Proving his good will towards the traditionalists Sedgwick's goes out of his way to apologize for Mircea Eliade's endorsement of the murders committed by the Romanian Iron Guard. He also bends over some distance to apologize and blur the factual record of Evola' s involvement with the fascists. He goes some length to ignore the factual record about Schuon's group, his delusions of grandeur and decadent cult of nudity. Sedgwick writes that Michael Fitzgerald of the Schuon cult launched "threats of legal action against me, my publisher (OUP), my editor and anyone else involved". The Schuon fanatics demanded he sanitize the book in the groups favor. The book was sanitized. Such suppression of facts could only come from the influence of fear. It ignores much of the decisive evidence about many of the traditionalists. But despite this weakness the book manages to summon a little courage to ask a few interesting questions.
Sedgwick does not go very far into the writings of the traditionalists. The fact is that the intellectual content of the writings of the major figures of this influential school of thought is questionable and nostalgic. It is better that Sedgwick did not go into the pastiche of various misread and dry doctrines the traditionalists stole from Native Americans, Vedanta, Buddhism or the Sufis. Few people read the traditionalists books simply because they are so pretentious and mistaken. Sedwick negalects to mention Schuon's Castes and Races, which tries to resurrect the outlawed Hindu system of unjust discrimination. If this book contains profound intellectual content then Hitler is profound, who also tried to resurrect the caste system. Sedgwick does not mention the that Guenon wrote some profoundly anti-Semitic things such as that Jews like Einstein and Freud were vehicles of "maleficent influences". Of course Guenon had some close friends among the Action Francaise, a militant fascist group in France who supported Hitler. A number of followers of Guenon were fascists such as Guido de Giorgio and Julius Evola. Mark Sedgwick has managed to gloss over so many negative and questionable aspects of traditionalism that the traditionalist should be very grateful to him. Actually it is good Sedgwick does not mention too much about the content of their writings. It would be a more embarrassing book.
Edward Rothstein of the New York Times notes the connection between Islamist ideas and 20th-century Western Fascism. Traditionalism is a form of "conservative revolution" which, wisely, no longer calls itself fascism. Ornstein observes that "traditionalism declared a war in which modernity itself was the enemy. Only in the total destruction of democratic individualism and liberal humanism could the lost wisdom be restored." This is exactly right. And it is this drive to radically impose archaic ideologies on the modern world that relates the traditionalists to some of the ultra right "conservative revolution", neo-fascists Islamic and otherwise. But if you really want to learn who the traditionalists are look on the internet where Guenon and his followers are listed in many on many 'conservative revolution' or neo-fascists lists and sites all around the world. Read this book if you want to know how fascism morphed and became spiritual after the death of Nazism.
It is an informative book that points the way to Nirvana for any hard-core or soft-core reactionary in need of fresh delusions to believe in. If you want some fashionably extreme esoteric fascism, this is the book to read. You can read Sedgwick and go on to the traditionalist's books and become an instant elite person, headed to the homeland where the spiritual heart glows with crosses, swords, secrets and swastikas. Traditionalism is spiritual fascism, and Sedgwick's book is an outer door to these mysteries. It is great book for those who wish to be initiated into that kind of power that looks beautiful from one point of view, but just might be a door that leads you into a dangerous realm of cults and crackpot theories born of hate and reaction. Welcome to the dark side.
Rating:
Summary: an important book
Review: Pr. Sedgwick's book is the first introduction to Traditionalism that, although a bit too respectful for my taste, is decidedly neutral and scholarly. Most negative reviews simply miss the point - this is a history of the Traditionalist movement and a presentation of its main actors and their ideas, not a Traditionalist work of erudition - or attack the author using a traditional "debating" technique, namely the straw-man. Nowhere does Pr. Sedgwick suggest that Traditionalism is inherently fascistic. If anything, he is a tad too generous in his assessment of Julius Evola, an important Traditionalist writer with unfortunate associations. Nor does he state that a book's importance is judged solely on its sales. Etc., etc.
What probably riles those reviewers is Pr. Sedgwick's contention that Traditionalism is primarily a system of belief and that some of its scientifical claims are more than dubious, although he is careful to note the quality and importance of Traditionalist translation work. Moreover, Pr. Sedgwick correctly observes that Traditionalist interpretations and/or practice of existing religions, e.g. Islam, are at the very least unorthodox if not plainly heretical.
My only criticisms of this book are the occasional typos and spelling mistakes (especially in French) and its title. Traditionalism is an interesting movement, but calling the book a "Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century" is a bit of a stretch. But then I guess it's the publisher who should take the blame, not Pr. Sedgwick.
Rating:
Summary: Againt any true spirituality
Review: Sedgwick's new book gives a very distorted image of the Traditionalist school. Obviously he totally missed the meaning of the writings of the traditionalist authors and most of the time, he seems to have read without understanding them.
Sedgwick is not only a poor metaphysician but also a poor historian: he tragically confused traditional doctrines themselves with the political misunderstandings of some people who can't be seriously considered as Perennialists such as Evola. Certainly for markeing purposes, he has also chosen to focus on individuals only and he has based some of his conclusions on sometimes very dubious informations.
At last, it is only a "detective' book that can't be seriously considered as the work of a historian.
Rating: 
Summary: Missing the Forest for the Trees
Review: This book is the author's attempt to write, in his words "a biography of Rene Guenon and the Traditionalist movement he founded." His treatment spans 370 pages of which about 100 are taken up with notes, a glossary, a list of interviewees, a bibliography, and an index. The remaining 271 pages are divided into a prologue and four main parts: The Development of Traditionalism, Traditionalism in Practice, Traditionalism at Large, and Traditionalism and the Future. Sedgwick understandability found it easier to organize some of his presentation thematically; still the overall presentation is chronological. In the PROLOGUE Sedgwick tells the story of his how he learned of "Traditionalism" and how he began to piece together a fuller picture of it. In PART I he takes us back to pre-WWI France for a look at the young Guenon (1886-1951) and the characters and milieu that surrounded the his early work. Sedgwick looks at Guenon's contact with Theosophy, Neo-Gnosticism, various Catholic and occult groups of the time. He tells of his relations with such figures as the art historian Ananda Coomaraswaamy, philosopher Jacques Maritain and occultist Gerard Encausse. PART II Tells of Guenon's move to Cairo, introduces us to Frithjof Schuon, another very important "Traditionalist", and tells us about Julius Evola and his activities during WWII. The last chapter of this section, entitled "Fragmentation", concentrates mainly on Sedgwick's understanding of the Shuon's relationship with Guenon as well as the beginnings of Shuon's Sufi order and the various groups that sprang from it. In PART III Sedgwick continues the story of Shuon's order, the Maryamiyya, and tells of Shuon's move to America along with some other "Traditionalist" activity there. He continue the story of Evola and his influence on Terrorist activity in post-WWII Italy, and then looks at "Traditionalist" influences in education, including the work of Mircea Eliade at the University of Chicago. PART IV deals with "Traditionalism" after 1968 including such figures as of E.F. Schumacher, Fr. Seraphim Rose, and Prince Charles. It also includes chapters on Alexander Dugin's Neo-Eurasianism in Russia and the place of "Traditionalism" in the contemporary Islamic world. Sedgwick concludes his book with a chapter entitled "Against the Stream" in which he gives what he calls a "theoretically based analysis" of "Traditionalism." This is not a complete summary of Sedgwick's book which includes many more details on the characters and subgroups that make up the "Traditionalists." While I learned a lot from his book it is the very abundance of detail that points to its greatest weakness. Although Sedgwick approaches the object of his study with a certain amount of sympathy, he still keeps his modern "scholarly" presuppositions intact and this prevents him from really coming to terms with Guenon's thought. An important instance of this is his attempt to "trace" Guenon's thought to written "sources" that are known to "scholars." Here we are at the very heart of the difference between modern and traditional methods. Guenon insisted that esoteric initiation into traditional wisdom was handed down orally and by other non-literary means. Thus it is likely that there will not be written record to document the content of intiatic wisdom. There is nothing inherently unreasonable in this; "scholars" have learned that Homer's poems were transmitted orally for hundreds of years, and Sedgwick himself gives three pages of references to interviews. A better familiarity with Guenon's thought would perhaps have proven to Sedgwick not its "originality", (a modern preoccupation which Guenon always rejected) but its authenticity and transcendent integrity. In other words it is at the level of ideas that Sedgwick's book is most lacking. Since "Traditionalism" is a super-eminently a "movement" concerned with ideas, an adequate history of it should deal with it much more on that level than Sedgwick's does. A sign of this lack is that he hardly mentions Guenon's masterwork "The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times." He does not include it among the four works which he cites as containing the "essentials" of "Traditonalist philosophy." (Had Sedgwick better understood "Reign" he may not have confused "pseudo-initiation" with "counter-initiation" as he does.) A better, although much shorter treatment at this level can be found in Jean Borella's article "Rene Guenon and the Traditionalist School" collected in the book "Modern Esoteric Spirituality." Borella's outline of the essentials of Guenon's "Traditionalism" is much better than Sedgwick's. If you are looking for an extensive detailing of some of the personalities and movements that make up "Traditionalism" then read Sedgwick's book, but don't think that by doing so you have understood Rene Guenon or "Traditionalism."
Rating:
Summary: Sufi flypaper for liberals
Review: This is an interesting account of the influence of various reactionary thinkers and groups (charitably called Traditionalists) of the early twentieth century, and onward to today. Among them we find the second rate Guenon and his milieu. Guenon moves in the circle of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff who were utterly reactionary sufi frontmen plying the flypaper tricks of the trade here: create a pastiche spiritual front emphasing esoteric wisdom and the need for absolute submission, thence to remorph enthusiastic liberal minds in the west toward cultural consevatism. Since none of these gurus care for the Declaration of the Rights of Man, democracy, or human autonomy, the deception is considerable. This is no joke, and these occultists can be deadly. This is still going on, although mostly a charade of dupes. These people have succeeded in making reactionary spiritual esotericism a potent cultural influence in Western societies. Moral: don't ever take sufism at face value or take nibbles out of the junk food designed for Western New Agers.
Rating:
Summary: Traditionalists: a term too ambiguous
Review: When I first saw the book I was delighted to see that an important school of thought in the twentieth century has finally found the attention it deserved. But my delight was changed to disappointment after reading through the chapters of the book.
First of all, one may call many thinkers with very divergent ideas "traditionalists," but one cannot make blanket statements and judgments about all of them based on the thoughts and deeds of some. It is as if one condemned Sartre as being a Nazi, because he was an Existentialist philosopher like Heideger, and Heideger, in some point, agreed with Hitler! There is a huge difference between a Rene Guenon and a Mircea Eliade, between an Evola and a Schuon, and one can put them all in one category only in some very superficial way, as exactly it is done in this book. The difference in the outlook and philosophy of these thinkers is sometimes as enormous as possible. Their political thought was even more divergent: the author has not been able to give even one example of any endorsement of Nazism, Fascism, or any totalitarian system by Guenon, Schuon, or Coomaraswami, whom he regards as the most influential among the traditionalists and as "hard" traditionalists (there is no example indeed; actually these people and their loyal followers always opposed and condemned that kind of regimes), yet he cleverly asserts Eliade (his "soft" traditionalist) and Evola's approval of fascism in a way to convince the reader of the whole party's guilt.
Secondly, when reading a book about some philosophy, one expects the critical examination of the philosophy in itself, and not some here and there told stories, whether factual or fictional, coupled with some not very important aspects of the philosophy in question. A reader who does not know much about traditionalists finishes the book without achieving any in-depth information about any of the personage covered in this book.
Thirdly, some very influential traditionalists are absent: As a traditionalist philosopher and thinker, Titus Burckhardt, for example, was far more important than Evola, yet it seems that the author, in order to achieve his purpose, had to leave some space for a fascist Evola. (Interesting to notice that, Burckhardt wrote an article against Evola's views).
And finally, the book is has a lot of misinformation: if you interview only somebody's enemies, you will most probably end up with the wrong information. To write impartially needs hearing both sides of a story.
|
