This book was an interesting review of various circuses, although only circuses that are UK-based or perform in the UK. All types of modern circuses are covered, from the very traditional to the more modern cirque-type shows, to circuses that appeal to very specific audiences. The history and interviews were good, but at times I felt like the author was biased towards certain types of circuses. He spends a lot of time writing about Gerry Cottle and a clowning duo act, neither of which I'd ever heard of because they are based out of the UK and don't tour in the US. He also talks about the origins of clowning like it all originated in the UK, when clowning seemed to have come from Italy (the traditional harlequin) and the whole "hobo" clown thing, I believe, came from the US during the Great Depression.
The author doesn't seem to like the animal circuses, either: those he interviews who use animals in their circuses talk about how the animal rights activists make running an animal circus difficult, when in those respective circuses, no animal abuse occurs - yet the author then discusses his own distaste for animals performing tricks (e.g. a horse taking a bow). I like how one interviewee toward the end of the book puts it: you see racehorses being beaten on the track and no one says a word, but having a horse perform a few tricks and the activists protest.
And when the author seems to sneer a bit at Cirque du Soleil, commenting on how they are nationally funded (France and Canada are very supportive of circus arts), and how they are arty for the sake of being arty but how he'd enjoy the acts better if they were done in a more traditional circus manner without all the window dressing, I was very put off. I love Cirque du Soleil. I don't know how the author can look down on French circus for being government funded while he then praises the Chinese and Russian circuses, which are also state funded (although Russia's is not any longer).
So while this is a good overview of the various kinds of circuses out there today, I felt like the reporting was geographically narrow and more than a little biased.