Shoddy pseudo-scholarship at its worst. Poorly written, repetitive. The book begins by promising (warning) that it will be a rather dense and scholarly study of Artaud and Strasberg. It then fails to deliver, merely stating (repeatedly) that Artaud is "crazy" (we knew that) and that 99% of what he says is "drivel" that can be dismissed out of hand. He then neglects to say exactly what it is about Artaud that might be useful. The book is mostly a paean to Strasberg and the Method and a diatribe against the "British School" of acting; a straw dog at best. I gather that the author saw and enjoyed an Artaud inspired production or two and concluded that it must have something in common with the Method inspired performances he also liked. The common link, he concludes, is a sense of "reality" in both. The book is a dive down a rabbit hole trying to prove this theory but gets lost along the way. It must be noted that Artaud was not much interested in "reality." He (Artaud) said, "..preoccupation with personal problems disgusts me." There may be some connection to draw between Artaud and Strasberg, but this isn't it.
For a truly insightful appraisal of Artaud, read Jerzy Grotowski's chapter in "Towards a Poor Theatre" (117-125.)