Gnip is on the right track here, though I would like to suggest a few corrections to his last statement. The reason the book received so much negative feedback from academics was not only because of its high profile, but it certainly did play a major role. Historians did definitely want to counter the widespread praise the book was receiving from journalists and other non-specialists, but it was also the book’s clear and obvious failings that drew a lot of attention from academics, who felt it was their responsibility to expose the book’s problematic research and unsubstantiated conclusions. Any work claiming to provide a comprehensive biography of one of the world's most famous (or infamous) leaders will get noticed, and will certainly be watched closely by academics specializing in China studies. As someone currently working within this very millieu, I can say that most specialists I know of have spoken to were at least aware of the book. Gnip is, however, correct that the published response to the book (such as the Benton volume, or the China Journal response) were unusual, as I have stated before in this article's discussion. I think this is the part that is getting lost on John Smith's, unfortunately. Though I may be splitting hairs rehashing Gnip's words, what I am trying to clarify is that people should not be under the impression that academics only noticed the book due it its huge publicity. It is not correct to say that without its ‘high profile’ “the academic world would [never have known] about such a book.” Professional historians deal daily with the “low profile”, often reviewing books that never become very popular or well-known (ie. they don't sell very well outside of academia). In fact, they frequently research and dissect works that few outside of a very small circle of individuals will ever read. In this sense, academics are very insulated in what they do, and are often disconnected from the general public. That is not to say, however, that they are unaware of new publications outside of academia, particularly those re-evaluating major figures in history. Also, Benton’s volume “Was Mao Really a Monster” was not, in my opinion, a major contributor to the book’s popularity, as Gnip suggests. As you know, MTUS was first published in 2005, and this collection of reviews was only published in 2009, quite some time after the book had already become popular (and as you know, the reviews found in the volume had been previously published elsewhere). What is important about this recent volume is not how it contributed to the book’s popularity, in my opinion, but rather as a reflection of how distressed the academic community truly is by the MTUS’s continued popularity. This last fact is what I am concerned does not quite get across in the article, as it stands. Unfortunately, I’m not sure how to appropriately correct that issue. I think that is what Midnightblueowl has been trying to address, and what I myself tried to do some time ago.