My rating: 1 of 5 stars
This book was poorly researched, poorly supported by actual evidence, and an exercise in melodrama. It was severely lacking in evidence or the kind of research that would make it worthwhile, and it was full of supposition and speculation.
I often enjoy a work of history that's written by a novelist. When properly researched, the skills of a good novelist can bring history to life in ways that more academic writers aren't equipped to do. There have been some excellent books of this type. Then there's this dreck.
The First Conspiracy was repetitious, speculative and unsupported by actual primary sources. I have a degree in history, but I don't expect books I grab at the bookstore or library to read like my thesis. Rather, I want them to be more entertaining than an academic work. Still, what you get is vague speculation... unconnected pieces... lack of substantial direct quotes... cue ominous music ...George Washington!. That doesn't make for a credible story. (But be sure to hear George Washington's name in your most dramatic internal voice. The authors throw in his name more times than I could count. And yes, I know he's the subject. What I mean is, there are hundreds of filler lines that just mention George Washington to remind you how important all of this is and hope you don't notice that they no evidence to support whatever they're talking about.
Even the title itself is misleading. Other than the fact that the British and their supporters would have loved to have captured Washington or any of the other colonial leaders--and might well have executed them as traitors--there's little to support this being any kind of serious plot. There's just no meat on these bones. Don't waste your time!
View all my reviews