If you're interested in the content contained within this book, skip to the "read more" button. If you enjoy reading rants about the quality of the book, read and grumble with me.

I read this book on the plane on my way to New York. I'd finished writing my term papers the day before, which ended up being about 40 pages (single-spaced) of extremely well-cited research paper. I read no less than 36 articles, thoroughly annotated a bibliography, and thought critically about the contents. SO, going into this book, I had high expectations of academic rigor (CITE EVERYTHING. This is something I have to tell my students all the time. If you don't say where you got it, I think it's from you, and there is no way you knew all that shit to start with, and throughout this book found myself wondering why the editors hadn't done the same for these authors). On a purely impressionistic level (not like I'm going to tally this up or anything, sheesh), only about a third of the statements in this book had footnotes giving their source. Now, I understand it was written by 3 people, and their combined knowledge would undoubtedly account for some of that. But 2/3? Doubtful.
Also, I read this all in one go (well, okay, I took a break to switch planes, eat, and take a nap), but all the material was pretty fresh in my mind, and I noticed a lot of repetition. Like, did you know that the area in the brain responsible for smell has very few links to the language parts of the brain, which helps account for why we have such trouble describing words? Well, after reading this book, you'll never forget, because it's mentioned so. many. times. There are several other examples like that: women have a better sense of smell than men, smell is very important in the bonding of mother and baby, perfumers can't actually smell that much better than norms. If I were writing this as an actual paper, I would include citations of those, though I would be unsure of which citation to use––the first? The fifth? The last (often, like, 20th)? This should not be an issue! Agh!
More editing complaints (I'm sorry, I'm a linguist and appreciate that everyone speaks differently and those differences should be respected, but the same principle does not apply for writing. There are standards, and if you are writing a mass-market book, you had damn well better follow them! Also, when I was in high school and had to take that PLAN/Pre-ACT test that told you waht you should be when you grow up, they said funeral director or editor. I don't know what those have in common, either, and I find it very puzzling that there's a large enough market for funeral directors and editors for them to be included in a big test like that. Anyways, [this] tangent over): parentheticals (too many! it's like one of my blog posts, gawd), several of which don't have one or the other parenthesis. Do you know how irritating it is to not know when the parenthetical thought is over? Or when it was supposed to have begun? SO IRRITATING. There are certain standards that should be met in a published book, including (but not limited to) spellcheck [didn't notice anything like that in this book, fortunately], correct punctuation (this includes no floating parentheses! Or colons all over the place: it is very annoying), and clearly structured, non-reductionist information, which this book was sadly lacking at times.