I had high expectations for this book. I am interested in the "black Death" mystery, and thought this book would be just the thing. However, I was disappointed by contradictory examples, seemingly mixed up chapter order and no references what so ever.
First, most of the book is basically a recital of cities and dates and deaths, though in many examples the authors say the numbers were "probably" exaggerated. The authors use phrases like that a lot - "probably" and "almost certainly" and "presumably" and "must have" in place of real evidence or references. As in the ship "most certainly" landed in such-a-such harbor, and it "probably" brought the infection . . . Well, did it or didn't it? What documentation or historical accounts give evidence of this? Or even hint at it? When I see phrases like that and no evidence or reference sited it makes me skeptical of the validity of the claim. I don't know whether or not that is the case with this book, but without references, I can't really say.
As for the seemingly mixed up chapters, I honestly wondered if my Kindle version had gotten mixed up somehow. One chapter will end with the question "what have we learned about this disease?" and so I'd think the next chapter (finally) would be getting into the real meat of the matter, only to find in the next chapter yet more references of cities and dates and death rates. Then, I read a question something like (remembering from memory) "Did England escaped the plague on its stronghold island", but in previous chapters there had been many examples already given of the plague and deaths in England . . .
Another thing I always find rather distasteful is when authors try to discredit other authors' works, saying, I'm right and you are SOOOO wrong!! The authors of this book did just that, stating clearly the title of the book and the author by name, being condescending and sarcastic. They disparage this book and author on the grounds that the other author argues that the plague was carried by rats and fleas, making the comment that, as usual, the people of the time period obviously knew it was a person to person contagion. They keep harping on that, saying that the people of the time knew it was contagious. But, in the very next sentence describing how the people thought it was inflicted by sorcerers and Jews and spread by foul odors and "humors" and that these evil doers were routinely sought out, tortured and executed. The authors also make the claim that the plague couldn't possibly have been caused by rats and/or fleas as others have claimed. I can't say one way or the other what the plague was or how it was transported, I'm not an expert, but I can say the authors of this book did nothing to convince me of their theories, while other books that argue for opposite theories (theories these authors try to discredit) are better written and referenced and far more convincing. As a reader, the more convincingly argued and better referenced books are going to be far more believable to me.
We are told that the people knew it was a person to person contagion and the fact that they instituted quarantines and prevented travel or ships docking was supposedly proof that this was so. Then, we are given example after example where quarantines and blockades didn't work. We are told that anyone tending the sick die within days, but then we are told that they were actually infected days and days before. On the one hand, we are told how smart and observant and RIGHT the people of the time period were, but then we are told how the reported death rates are wrong. Which is it? Was it immediately infectious and lethal or wasn't it?
And, I was expecting a book about the Black Death and its potential return. I would have settled for an interesting historical recount. What I got was basically was a recital of historical reports and death tolls, travel routes and plague routes. Quite honestly, this book was in no way worth the ten hard earned dollars I paid for the kindle version.
Note to authors: site references PLEASE, reference would have gone a long, long way to convincing me. Don't try to discredit other authors or books with condescending comments and sarcastic remarks, or better yet just don't do it at all, it doesn't make you look good, rather petty really, and makes me as a reader view everything else presented in your work with a less than favorable eye. And try to be consistent in your arguments at least, don't tell me one thing and then immediately tell me why it isn't so. Frustrating, frustrating, frustrating book.