Stephen Fry's comment on the dust jacket that the book is "dead good" is an interesting play on words - what is good that is dead? Is something "good" if it is "dead good"?
The book certainly held my attention (which I needed on my flight to Israel and back). As long as you don't mind reading about people that you've never heard of and have an interest in history, the text is not a problem. Unless you're pedantic about language and grammar. Whoever edited the manuscript needs to be fired, or else, I should've known why the book was so cheap when I bought it (no-one edited it!).
Facts from the book that "stuck" really only pertain to famous names, like Rembrandt, Florence Nightingale or Henry Ford. Other people discussed might've had fascinating things happen to them, like the bloke who weighed 335kg and died at the age of 39. Do you see my point? If it was to be useful in any way, I surely should've remembered "the bloke's" name!? So was the text useful? Did I gain anything from it? I'd have to say, "not really". Some chapters start discussing folk under a certain heading and seem to meander off on a little detail. Others discuss someone, flow into someone else and you lose the point of the initial writing. If you're really looking for inspiration to carry on living, find it in the Bible. This book's merit lies in digging out facts you would otherwise not have heard of. Perhaps all the rave reviews recorded on the back dust cover really only relate to the very last sentence: As long as you're undead, you still have a chance. Somehow you don't judge a book by its last sentence!