Before I read this book I had some contact with its content, so I wasn't really expecting much when I finally read it. My conclusion about the book was not a surprise.
I will start with the positive points. The book is richly illustrated, with some very interesting images, though the captions are not always careful and at times either misidentify or make no effort to identify what is going on. The wealth of sources was a delight for a person who is studying about Michael Collins, though, again, the excess of quotes from the polemic Peter Hart can only be explained because the authors are from Trinity College.
The book has two authors, and it is very clear all along that some chapters were written by one and some by the other, which damages the book's unity. Not only the writing styles are distinctive, but they seem to work with different agendas. One author is clearly more knowledgeable, but also more impartial, resorting less to Peter Hart and being more critical of his work. The other author brought me to the brink of despair at times, when listing facts that point to one side, and then coming to the exact opposite conclusion. It is evident that this author wants to make a point of wrecking the image of Collins by presenting him as a non-entity, someone who really did nothing good, treating the reader like an empty-minded person, unable to come to their own conclusions from the evidence presented and thus pliable to the predetermined invectives. It is infuriating.
It goes worse: the dialogue between the authors seems to be so scarce that at some points the same facts base a certain conclusion in one chapter and the opposite conclusion on the next.
I only wished that author #1 could write another book with the same material, this time alone.