Despite containing tons of fascinating new (at the time of publication, I am guessing) insights about Mediterranean history, my overall impression of this book is that it was written in a deliberately complicated way. I'm not talking about the specialist language - of which there is loads - but also the syntax the authors use and the ways that they refer back to previous arguments or documents throughout the book.
Just one example - on page 486 of my edition, the authors state that "...on being provoked, a Greek Cypriot, a Bedouin and a Berber may answer 'I also have a moustache.'" Then, on the next page they refer to this previous quote as a way to introduce the topic they discuss for the REMAINDER of the book. They do this by saying "Of these topics - gender relations, the evil eye, class conflict, patronage, and so forth - we shall, for the remainder of the chapter, consider THE ONE [my caps] that prompted the remark about provocation and moustaches quoted above. We select IT [my caps] because IT [my caps] has been seen as an example of Mediterraneanism at its worst..."
OK - so you've introduced the topic that you're going to spend the rest of the chapter (and really, the rest of the book, barring the bibliographic essays) talking about. So... what is this momentous topic that you'll spend the rest of the chapter discussing? I had to wait two more pages for the authors to explicitly state they were going to focus on "honour and shame" for the remainder of the chapter. I just don't understand why they had to introduce the topic in this way - it was really confusing to me as a reader, and forced to keep turning back and forth between the pages to figure out what the authors were actually planning to discuss. On page 487, why could they not have just called out that they were going to discuss "honour and shame" for the remainder of the chapter? Unfortunately, the book is chock full of these types of instances - the authors will vaguely refer to what they're going to talk about in the following pages, and never explicitly call it out until much later. They are also deliberately obscure about other things - for instance, they talk about the installation of toilets in a village from Levi's book Christ stopped at Eboli, and refer to the toilets several times as "amenities." I would have never known what they were talking about if I wasn't already familiar with the book/film (and to my knowledge, "amenities" is not some peculiarly British-English way of referring to toilets).
All this, however, is coming out of a place of love. This book was fascinating to me, and it made me rethink a lot of my own assumptions about Mediterranean history and history in general. Their unifying framework of microecologies worked really well in their rethinking of a lot of aspects of Mediterranean history. I'm not a specialist (just a high school history teacher), but I can see myself adapting some of their ideas to my own classroom. I just can't understand, however, how professional writers (because that is ultimately part of their job) can be so awful at writing. If ideas like this were a bit more accessible to a more general audience (or even just non-specialists like myself), I feel that they'd make a much bigger impact (and not just on that non-specialist audience, but in academia as well).