Jared Diamond's new book asks whether prominent individuals genuinely shape history, or whether others would have achieved similar results in their place, using a self-styled "Hamlet test" to judge cases from Shakespeare to African statesmen to business tycoons. The review, published in the Guardian, is largely critical, arguing that Diamond's central test is flawed from the outset and that the book ignores decades of existing scholarship in history, ethics and business studies while presenting its questions as novel.

The reviewer challenges Diamond's Shakespeare example by noting that Christopher Marlowe, killed in 1593 aged 29, had already produced major works and may have rivalled Shakespeare had he lived longer, undermining Diamond's claim of "unique talent". More favourably, the review credits Diamond's use of "natural experiments" — such as economists comparing New Jersey and Pennsylvania fast-food employment after a minimum-wage rise, or studies estimating CEOs account for 6-29% of company earnings variation and coaches up to 30% of team performance — as a genuinely interesting method, even as it grows shakier when applied to murkier proxies like UN parking fines as a stand-in for corruption.