It's a pretty fair critique, but for me the good in the book still far outweighs the bad. With such an immense project and with so much information to cover, I fully expect there will be the occasional factual error or instances where the author draws a conclusion or makes an assumption that isn't totally accurate.
Ultimately, as much as I may love it, we're talking about the making of a TV show
here. It's not a history of the Civil War or the Lincoln presidency or anything.
I don't know that I agree. The same critiques are applicable to a lot of self-published books. I recently purchased an 800 page book about the history of Atari and you could copy and paste just about every criticism Harvey raised for TATV to that book as well: too long, spread out needlessly across three big volumes, no index, poorly written, poorly edited, nominally proofread, and, worst of all, rumor and supposition passed off as fact.
That's what's so disappointing about books that purport to be THE history yet wherein the authors can't be bothered to apply critical thinking to the work. If I need to fact check the book that is supposedly the facts, there's a problem.
Here is the pro/con about the traditional Gatekeepers. True in music also. The publishers needed to make dough on a big investment of paper and ink and warehousing, etc. So they apply quality control at the outset and the vast numbers of creators were filtered through a few gatekeepers. Who then employed editors and proofreaders and publicists. But we were limited to the choices the gatekeepers deign to give us.
Now with web 3.0 (or 2.0?) the everyone-is-a-publisher model, quality creators such as myself
who just didn't tickle the fancy of a Gatekeeper can still publish and find an audience maybe. The audience has a quantum leap greater amount to choose from. (Though we then run into the paradox of choice when we have too many choices.) But a ton of it is crap. Or possibly good at heart, but needing of a Gatekeeper's care, as it sounds TATV did.
So which is "better," the fewer but relatively better creations (percentage-wise)? Or the vastly greater number available, but proportionately more crap? (Sturgeon, where are you?) I don't know, but I'm grateful for the self-publishing route myself. I tried really hard to avoid the steretypical pitfalls (hired an editor, had several qualified proofreaders, and taught myself some cover design basics).
Now I think about it, it's funny this couldn't find a real publisher. The #1 thing they look for is a built-in audience, and if anything has one, TATV does. Maybe author wanted the much bigger cut you get going the self-route.