I just finished two years of researching the American suffragists, and I can say in all that time, I read absolutely nothing about the Transcendentalists. Many of the early suffragists were Quaker, a fact that cropped up continually in my reading. If the Transcendentalists were a true force for social reform, wouldn't I have encountered that fact?
While the blurb for the book says that the author will show that Transcendentalists were not isolated individuals, but acted as a community to effect social reform, I don't find that to be proven by the text. For one thing, the book is divided up by profiles of individuals, which necessarily isolates each story. Secondly, Transcendentalism doesn't seem to have been a cohesive movement. The adherents might have agreed on underlying principles such as spiritual friendship, but they seem to have had more differences than commonalities. I recognize this state of affairs, because I grew up in a separatist faith community that split every time some guy decided he had the only true revelation from God and everybody else's doctrine was too liberal (the worst thing!).
For me, reading about the Transcendentalists was a great contrast to the suffragists, who came from all backgrounds of faith and belief or non-belief. Their passion for the vote, and their willingness to commit their lives to it, pulled them together into one powerful force to effect societal change (despite some rifts due to racial issues and modes of protest). To me, the Transcendentalists, as depicted in this book, pretty much spent their time writing books and preaching sermons of social action, interspersed with occasional acts that demonstrated their underlying progressive thought. A religion of intellect over action.
Still, I found myself interested in the stories of these 19th century people. Actually, I was distracted from the Transcendental theme by the sheer drama of their lives, marriages, and families. It's a credit to the author that he could make people from 150 years ago as vivid as anyone living today. But you need some perseverance -- the author tends to write about ideas and events as if the reader already knows something about them. For example, in the introduction and first chapter, the author writes about a ship that goes up in flames in 1840. He mentions this event three times without explaining what really happened. Without that knowledge, it's hard to understand the point he's trying to make about it.