The content chapters, where he actually talks about history, are mostly good, but the political statements of the introduction and conclusion are frustrating (mostly for being wrong). In one breath he'll whinge about "social history" not being adequately individualist, and in the next he'll say that he himself is taking a social-historical approach. He complains that Marxists', feminists' and the aforementioned social historians' focus on social groups denies that "individual dissidence" is a thing – that is, he seems to believe Marxists, feminists and social historians argue that workers, women, whatever group it may be are all monoliths, and who on earth would argue that?! He can't tell the difference between bourgeois and workers' revolutions, and therefore argues that the "Spanish Revolution" may have had more success if only they'd managed to convince the bourgeoisie that they were committed to defending private property. He doesn't think the Nationalists were actually fascists, either. So, I don't know. He takes a good, "history-from-below" perspective to history but his politics are quite messed up and annoying. Skip the introduction/conclusion if you can, maybe.