Terrific subject, terrible author. From the outset Adams is writing with a clear agenda to diminish the accomplishments of the Brotherhood, and makes wild pronouncements on the intention and (what he sees as lack of) meaning in some of the paintings. Of course it done with a professors sober tone and learnèd diction, though he does at times almost slip into fangirlism whenever he discusses John Ruskin, and getting to make it look like this Critic is singlehandedly responsible for the great achievements of Art. Hardly any primary sources are quoted, after reading you have no understanding of what happened to cause rifts in the Brotherhood and what their ideological/aesthetical distinctions were, and only the vaguest idea of what made the pre-Raphaelite vision so different and revolutionary from post-Renaissance painting. Perhaps the only Positive aspect of the book is that it greatly whetted my appetite to learn more about Rossetti and Morris, and read more Thomas Carlyle—men far more profound and clear-sighted than this undeserving Author, worth more of your time, and will be remembered and appreciated for what they did and said long after mediocrities like Adams are forgotten
The beautiful full color pictures are the only noteworthy or redeeming quality of this book. The writing is extremely dry, and gave what felt like a cursory, thematic overview of the Pre Raphaelites. Had this been a college lecture, everyone would have fallen asleep. There is so much drama and passion to discuss with the brotherhood, and this book talks about essentially none of it. It does nothing to humanize the subjects—when art is an inherently human pursuit. I was also annoyed that some paintings are discussed at length but never shown. Honestly, I’ve read much more engaging Wikipedia articles.