This book opens up a real question when it comes to how to rate books in general: should I base my rating on the quality of the book, or how much I liked it. If it's the former then the book deserves a high rating (4-4.5 stars) in terms of its coverage of Owen's life. If I rank it by enjoyability, though, the rating is much lower (2-3 stars), based mainly on the appeal of the subject itself. I know that ultimately my ratings of books are a mix of both, but this is the first one that I can recall in which doing so seems unfairly prejudicial. Yet am I being honest if I give it a rating that doesn't reflect my personal reading experience?