Talk:Richard Rudgley

Untitled
it appears that Rudgley's first book on drugs was indeed "critically acclaimed" and won him an award, but that he later lost it and his books on the Stone Age, Paganism and Barbarians are essentially debunked as rubbish by critics. --dab (𒁳) 12:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rudgley, Denise Schmandt-Besserat and others.
I'm puzzled about the appraisal of Rudgley's stone age books. The article gives an excerpt from Denise Schmandt-Besserat's critical review of Secrets of the Stone Age (it is not clear whether the book or the television series). But if we follow the link to her we find the very first reference to her work, in a wholly positive tone, is "" Looking at that reference, which is chapter 3 of the book, we find that Rudgley does indeed describe Schmandt-Besserat's work in glowing terms, using phrases like "brilliantly and convincingly argued" (page 50). This seems a surprisingly asymmetrical mutual appraisal between these two authors.

I'm also curious about other reviews of "Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age". On the back of my copy it has "'Wonderful reading ... illuminating ... a zest for discovery that makes it a page-turner' Nature" together with similarly positive comments from the Mail on Sunday and from Martin Bernal. Nature, in particular, must be regarded as a reputable source of criticism, so would it not be more balanced to cite that too? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What can I say? I've got her review, which is of 'Lost Civilizations', not 'Secrets', the book of the tv program. Schmandt-Besserat isn't happy about the way her work and that of her colleagues was used. A very short review is here . I don't have Robb's Nature review, and we can't use just the bit from Amazon as who knows what the rest says? I can't find anything from the Daily Mail or Bernal. dougweller (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)