A guy named Mike Jenkinson wrote a review of Benoit in which he states, “If there is one glaring omission …, it is that the book does not raise the possibility that Benoit had been suffering from brain damage.”
I sent him a note gently pointing out that the book does just that in one passage.
On his blog, writing with all the grace of a sledgehammer pounding a feather into a pneumatic tube, Jenkinson huffs and puffs. This “hardly changes … my opinion” that the book is deficient in dealing with concussions, he says. The only problem is that the sentence, as published, wasn’t an opinion that the book was deficient in this area; it was a flat, and inaccurate, statement that the book “does not raise the possibility.”
Clearly this is an individual who treats the act of reading as an imposition.