":You didn't ask for ""China specialists"", you asked for academics. There's a difference between the two. And in any case you seemed to know what to find, so why play a game and ask me to provide you with a list?
Schram does praise the book. Nathan had more criticisms to make nd only expressed a belief that the book could be valuable. Furthermore, why isn't Baum a ""China specialist""? He's written books on Mao and the Cultural Revolution. He's also part of UCLA's Center for Chinese Studies. Also if people like Goodman, Bernstein (focus on politics) is a ""China specialist"" then I think Michael Yahuda's opinion is at least notable.
Lastly and most importantly, how does being a ""China specialist"" make you better able to consider the book than a historian who does not focus on China? If some of the greatest weaknesses of the book are historiographical, any historian should be able to spot them. Indeed, does someone who specialises in politics like Goodman have that historical grounding that would be useful? Not suggesting he doesn't, just wondering.   

"