"History quality", of writing, but too dull to have happened. First of all, Fidel took over the country; there was no "revolution". Ruiz is also weak on his analysis of the Cuban middle class, which he does not seem to willing to understand was established [14-17], or if so, that it clamored for a "national chieftain" [17]while still being distrustful [16]. Incredibly, he describes Castro as "politically acute, and charistmatic"[17] for claiming (falsely) to speak for the ideals of Marti. How smart is that? Worse, Ruiz documents the fact that Castro was the SOLE remaining alternative after Batista (and Castro) killed off the competition, without reflection. How "charismatic" does Fidel have to be to take over after no one else is left? The whole "point" of Cuba's history is that it is under a pall, a not-revolution, a not-Marti vision. We await the historian who will ventilate the dynamic that allows a caudillo to "take over". How could Hitler seize everything from the most educated people on the planet? How could Fidel take everything from the most talented people on the planet?