[teh_klev]

See also Bill Bryson. I think it's a bit unfair to criticise these types of books for not being 100% academically rigorous (having citations etc). They're generally ok as entertaining introductions to new subject matter for the reader. After that the reader can then go looking for more authoritative writings of the topics being explored that tickle their fancy.

[rosetremiere]

I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but I believe/hope it should be possible to be accessible and entertaining while still being academically "acceptable" in terms of references (which doesn't need to be of the form 1 claim, 1 reference) and without taking misleading shortcuts or trying to sell your new universal theory of history, but sticking to consensual understandings and/or prefacing your novel ideas adequately.

I guess it sells better if you can make your audience believe that your theory explains "everything". Having read the book, it's a better feeling to think that you now understand the gears of history through this new lens, rather than it being just a complex jumble of interconnected stories/phenomena.

[teh_klev]

> it's a better feeling to think that you now understand the gears of history through this new lens

This is the thing, there's no harm in reading something like this where the author may be "pushing a narrative", but so long as the reader maintains a modicum of critical thinking I see no harm.

[dr_dshiv]

Maybe sell a footnoted version at twice the price? Footnotes can scare regular readers.