Unconvincing and judgmental.
It promises an insight into people's mentalities in 18th c. France, complete with a "Great Cat Massacre", for "the general reading public, as well as for scholars". Unfortunately, while the first chapter was fun and the second was interesting, the book went downhill from there. The fifth chapter is nearly incomprehensible if you don't know your Locke and Acquinas, to be able to follow Darnton's points. Sometimes, he judges social categories which judged each other for judging each other.
However, aside from the assumption that his readers know all sorts of things they probably don't, Darnton's biggest fault is that of the post-modern humanist's: the attempt to judge all cultures as equal, and to judge them according to his own opinion which he suggests as Truth. The fact that his burgeois subject looked down on lower classes is judged through this contemporary post-modern lens, which, I believe, is a mistake. Also, he strikes me as over-interpreting on the basis of scant evidence.
Let me discuss chapter two, which gives the book its title: the episode and interpretation of "The Great Cat Massacre".
The summary of the cat massacre: a bunch of journeymen and other laborers worked in the printing shop of a rich "master" (this was a common arrangement at the time). They liked laughing, drinking, telling stories - and they weren't particularly educated or intellectual folk. Now, while they barely had enough money for their needs, the master was really rich and the mistress owned several cats, which, along with other cats in the neighborhood, meowed all night, thus not allowing the workers to sleep peacefully. One of them imitated the cats around the master's bedroom, until he and his wife couldn't sleep, either, which prompted the wife to order the workers to get rid of the cats, with the exception of her favorite grey one. The workers killed her cat (then hid its body to escape her wrath) and staged a ritual massacre of cats, which the mistress was scandalized by, but which they found really funny.
Darnton tries to explain the amusement of the situation by over-interpreting the episode until it becomes an act of revolt, of sexual insinuation, intertwined with symbolism of witchcraft, a metaphorical gang rape of the mistress, a grotesque show - and I'm wondering if I forgot some of its ascribed meanings.
His logic makes some sort of sense: cats were symbols related to witchcraft and sexuality; thus, the massacre was a symbolic gesture against the rich master and his wife (and her sexuality). However, I for one am not buying the evidence. Cats are associated with sexuality today, as well (Catwoman, anyone?), which doesn't mean that if I kick someone's cat, I'm attacking their sexuality. I might just hate the cat.
Not everything is clear-cut and obvious and I'm not convinced that 18th c. people would recognize themselves in Darnton's observations, especially since he seems locked in his academic ivory tower: the great cat massacre wasn't only amusing in a strange, distant past, with a vastly different culture. It would be amusing today to some groups of people: poor people, young people, cruel people.
To prove it, I'll recall a similar event I heard about in middle school: a group of teens visited one of their friends, who owned a hamster. While the host was away, one of the boys raped the hamster with a pencil, which led to its (non-immediate) death, to the distress of the host who didn't know what was wrong with the pet.
Make no mistake: this was funny. Maybe for the cruelty, maybe for the transgression, maybe for both. I think none of my old school mates would rape a hamster with a pencil today, but that's because we learn to be genteel in time and because our society really frowns on such acts. Attempting to explain the cruelty and subsequent amusement in a very rational manner, relating it to all sorts of symbols and modes of thinking might be too much of a stretch.
But Darnton goes on and on, making all sorts of assumptions which seem a bit of a stretch, which make me wonder how he selected his evidence and what he ignored to make his points, which are, as always, hidden by the academic pseudo-certain style.