Even in Kyoto

First, Cain did, indeed, declare some unusual editorial decisions up front in the author's note, including the decision to omit ellipses and brackets in certain quotations while supposedly making sure omissions didn't change the speaker or writer's meaning. As an aside, she then notes that "If you would like to quote these written sources from the original, the citations directing you to the full quotations appear in the Notes." Perhaps I should have made more careful note of this decision when I started reading, but it still seems like an underhanded way of crediting sources.

Since I'm not such a generous reviewer, I'll say that's somewhere between poor scholarship and intellectual dishonesty, maybe with a dash of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.