Unlike most of the "history" we were force-fed in school, "Guns, Germs and Steel" is at once thought-provoking, well-written, fascinating, and highly entertaining.  Jared Diamond richly deserves all the accolades (and money), which he has earned!  Hey, anyone who can make history interesting to millions of Americans raised on a thin gruel of rote memorization, boring textbooks, and self-serving propaganda (see James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me") has got to be doing something right!As far as the critics of "Guns, Germs and Steel," at least as indicated by reviews here at Amazon.com, they basically seem to be arguing that the book is flawed because it is (choose one or more): "politically correct," "left-wing," not "original," "lacking in concrete evidence," overly deterministic in its focus on natural forces/factors, and -- a related criticism - neglectful of important "human variables," particularly "culture" and "religion."OK, then, what about it, is the book "politically correct" or "left-wing"?  Well, if by "politically correct" the critics are referring to a hypersensitivity to any criticism of the "in" group(s) of the day, and/or holding the majority (or an "out" group, like white males, in some people's view) to a far tougher standard than others are held to, I don't really see how that criticism applies to "Guns, Germs, and Steel".  Reason?  Diamond is not saying that Europeans are BAD because they conquered the Indians or Africans or whoever, he's just explaining WHY Europeans conquered the Indians or Africans or whoever.  Huge difference there!  Really, it's surprising that this book is criticized as "PC", because as far as I can tell it's basically arguing "survival of the fittest" on a racial level (although not for any "inherent" or "God-given" reason, but basically for totally natural/arbitrary/accidental factors), and I thought that "survival of the fittest" was an old favorite of many conservatives, even fascists.  So, in sum, I just don't understand why this criticism is being made at all.As far as "lacking in concrete evidence," I think that's kind of a silly criticism for a book which is written specifically for a mass audience, plus it's wrong anyway.  Diamond presents PLENTY of fascinating, thought-provoking, entertaining evidence for his thesis, and if you want more you can read lots more about it all over the place!As far as "ignoring human variables" (especially "culture" and "religion"), that gets to the heart of Diamond's whole argument, and people who make this criticism either don't get Diamond's argument or just don't LIKE it (probably because it implies that THEIR "culture" and/or "religion" are not inherently any more wonderful or superior to any others, although they certainly may be more adaptive in a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" sense).The thing is, this whole question is a "chicken and egg" paradox.  In other words, is northern European Protestantism (for instance) more powerful than, let's say, Native American religions, because it is inherently "better" in some sense, or is it more that northern European Protestantism HAPPENED to win out (for all kinds of reasons not under their control, like germs, which they didn't even know about), and as the victors they got to write history (and, not surprisingly, portray themselves in the most positive light).  Just to take one powerfully intriguing example, what if Europeans had come over to America and been decimated by native American diseases instead of the other way around?  That ALONE probably would have stopped the Europeans from defeating the Indians.  Imagine if a few survivors had sailed back to Europe carrying these diseases and Europe had largely been wiped out as well.  Among many other things, I don't think too many people would be making the argument today that European civilization was superior to any other, that's for sure!Anyway, the bottom line here is that this is a great book.  So, pay no heed to the ideologues and nitpickers, read the book for yourself, and enjoy a fantastic story! 

Question: Why is write was  readable?
Answer: the critics