I have three books in the Palgrave series Great Thinkers in Economics: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Maynard Keynes. The authors of the Smith and Ricardo books are even-handed in their treatments; Kennedy's preface to Adam Smith states "This is not, however, an essay in hagiography." Each ends with an assessment of the subject's legacy. No so with Mr. Davidson on Keynes! We are not told merely of Keynes' theory, but, endlessly, of "Keynes' revolutionary theory". Economists, including neo-Keynesians, who fail to embrace as a whole original Keynesianism are dismissed as failing to understand it, or even being unable to understand it due to pre-conditioning. Davidson's book can be described as a hagiography. An author should be able to write as he or she wishes, so I fault the editor of the Palgrave series for including such a "true believer's" diatribe in the series.