Thanks for your reply about the book. I did decide to read it, because as I'm not a historian, I'm the proper audience for it. I'm enjoying it so far. As you say, he's not claiming to be an expert or that anything he's saying is new or original research. He says at the outset that he's NOT an expert, but that he wants to share what he's learned from them, because that information has not been successfully disseminated to the general public. Which is true.

So, I guess I'd counter the expert eye-rolling with a question: What do they want out of a general-audience book about their field? Is there a better one written by someone in academia? If not, isn't that a bit of a failure on their collective part? Why *are* outdated things still believed? (Perhaps this is addressed somewhere in 1491 and I haven't gotten there.)

Don't get me wrong, I understand it's hard, as an expert, to read a general-interest book about your field. It's painful for me to read a beginners' explanation of something I am extremely knowledgeable about, because I know what a simplification it is. It's hard not to fall in the trap of rolling one's eyes about it, but how else is anyone supposed to learn? It's valid to learn a little about something; not everyone has to learn a lot.

(I replied to elgoose but it's directed at both of you, or anyone/everyone.)