Ah, those silly anicents, leaving great treasures buried but forgetting to mark the X on the map. Poor Tut, he should've copyrighted his own death, considering how many people seem to make money off of it. Or maybe Egypt should've.I must have seen the documentary that Brier did that inspired his book. I know I have seen his other specials. His like Simon Schmna, interesting to listen to but something about those mannerisms.Brier's book is quite easy to read, and while he writes for an non-Egypt specialist, such as moi, he doesn't think his reader is an idiot. He presumes that a reader intersted enough to read his book knows something, so while he does give background infromation, it is like a refresher course. His style and tone are great; he is much better to read than to watch. He is very, very clear and painstakingly honest about when he guesses and when he knows for sure. Because Brier's allows the reader to access his (Brier's) fasination with Tut, the book feels very personal.But this also weakens his argument. While Brier does an excellent job as a prosecutor in terms of his defendent, the problem is that one has the feeling, encouraged by Brier's honestly, that defendent is chosen simply due to Brier's dislike. In some ways, this is like reading Cornwall's Portrait Of A Killer: Jack The Ripper -- Case Closed. Though this comparsion is hugely unfair and slightly inaccurate. Unlike Cornwall, Brier is honest, brutally honest, about his prejudice and, more importantly, he consults and cites outside experts who owe him nothing, who don't work for him, and have no reason to curry his favor. Which makes him much better than Cornwall because even though he has predjudices and goes into the case with a theory to prove and not discover, he at least admits it, constantly.