I've never read a book as simultaneously tedious and interesting as this one. I was both engaged while reading it and wishing the author would hurry up and get to his conclusion. For fans of Foucault, I am aware that Foucault is considered highly influential, even to this day.

I don't think his arguments came across as incorrect, generally. But the text is repetitive (the word "discourse" is used over 200 times in under 170 pages) and fairly vague. Being someone who reads a lot of scholarly works related to history and social science, I am accustomed to a more academic and modern approach to argumentation, incorporating dates, citations, and data. This work reads like the writing of someone born in the 1920s who was a philosopher first.

That isn't a criticism of the volume so much as a way of describing why I didn't find it exceptionally compelling. The text is filled with interesting ideas and interpretations, but it doesn't offer much in terms of empirical support for itself. Again, that probably wasn't the purpose.

If you prefer reading philosophical reflections on historical subjects, you'll likely enjoy this book.