Don’t believe the summary.

I took the summary at face value. I should have looked up the author.

Had I done so it would have been obvious that the book exists not by virtue of any genuine interest in Atlantis as a topic, but rather it’s existence as just one more in a long list of myths and legends waiting to be sensationalised and sold to conspiracy theorists.

On a scale from Hancock to Cayce, this sits just on the other side of Cayce, only with less eloquence and a blatant but unsophisticated attempt to masquerade as reasoned logic rather than fanciful musings.

Nor can I accept that any weakness of logic here is in error. It leverages the same logical fallacies so consistently that it simply cannot be anything but dishonest and deliberate sensationalisation.

The structure is largely statement, analogy and conclusion. It is difficult to endure as the analogies are almost universally ridiculous and offer no support whatsoever for the equally ridiculous conclusions, and repeats this ad-nauseam for the entirety of the work.

To give but one example, it offers Plato’s account that the city had 1200 ships, compares that to the number of ships in the US Navy and uses that to suggest that Atlantis had the same military might then that America has today.

Making such an erroneous argument once would be merely amateurish and incompetent, but instead this is characteristic of the entire work.

The tragedy is that the initial statements often refer to something of interest, and a more honest discussion would often have been worthwhile.

I cannot say it is all drivel. A good chunk of it is instead a verbatim reproduction of Plato’s original works, and in sufficient volume as would be illegal for any material not in the public domain.

In summary, go read Plato’s Timaeus and Critias. There’s little here beyond that which is not deliberate misrepresentation.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!