Instruct: Classify Amazon reviews into positive or negative sentiment
Query: Misses both the general reader and the historian

To defend his lack of academic documentation in the book, Peter Berresford Ellis claims he writes for the "general reader," not the historian. I'll leave it to the other reviewers to explain how Ellis's book disappoints historians, but as a general reader I feel qualified to say it disappoints me. Here's why:1) The book's writing style is a lengthy listing of names and places with minimal transition or elaboration to string them together meaningfully. For a general reader, Ellis makes a fascinating subject tedious to follow.2) Some of the arguments Ellis makes are weakly supported and, frankly, appear unobjective. In a tone that crosses to sarcasm, he attacks several sources as pro-Roman (i.e. untrustworthy) without explaining his evidence thoroughly.