I didn't mention it in my other review, but the historical aspect dissapointed me as well. The first version of the book was almost all food science/myth debunking and almost no history. If the history related in some way to the science, it would be helpful, but for the most part, the two are unrelated. He should have written a separate history book and stayed true to the original scientific slant of the first tome.
I've read it from cover to cover a couple times, and, to be honest, the historical info makes a really tough read.
At the same time, though, I'm sure there's a food history buff out there saying that the scientific information was hard to get through.
And, although not Harold's fault, I will re-iterate my thoughts on the index. It stinks. |