Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

** spoiler alert ** 1.5, maybe. I skimmed most of it.

I wanted to like this but.

First Esmee Stewart and Matthew Lennox were not the same person. Esmee Stewart was the favorite of James VI and I, and was possibly his lover. Esmee Stewart was never regent, though he had sway over James (who was proclaimed adult ruler in 1579, I believe). Matthew Stewart was James' grandfather and a regent. This is an easy fact to check. I get it can be confusing - Esmee Stewart is the 1st Duke of Lennox, Matthew Stewart the 4th Earl of Lennox, but seriously check it. So that pissed me off.

But the main issue is that Gibson seems to be using the witchcraft trials to show how society goes after people, largely women. This would be okay if the thesis were actually clearer and if she didn't constantly blur lines. For instance, I might agree that you could argue that the abuse Stormy Daniels got was similar to a witchcraft trial, but if your example of a gay man being given a witchcraft trial for who he is, is in fact Montague Summers, I'm going to side eye you. You are playing Summers occult/witchcraft connections to make a larger point but don't do it well.

Furthermore, and I say this as a person who hates Trump, why include Stormy Daniels? I get that Daniels is there in part because of Trump's constant and false use of "witch hunt" but it also makes the chapter more of an attack on Trump chapter, which I am totally down with but that doesn't quite fit the book. Trial by public opinion maybe, but Stormy Daniels was not on trial, unless you count the defamation case. A better example, one where a woman face real legal danger or damage, would be Amber Heard and the abuse she faced. The book might have been written in responsible to Trump's misuse of the term witch hunt, but still the Daniels chapter is odd. And if I, a Trump hater, notes that and have questions about the inclusion, it's not a good sign.

There were parts I liked, but I wanted more detail. I would have preferred more detail about the trial in Norway, say, than the inclusion of modern examples that may have been influenced by historical witch hunts. In fact, the first half of the book is superior to the second, more modern, half. It's almost like two book sandwiched together.

I will note that the writing really isn't academic. It might be dry for some people, but it is not purely academic writing.