Reviewing Jeopardy champion Ken Jennings Brainiac, about the worlds and history of trivia buffs, is unnecessary. If you like that sort of thing, you will read it if it crosses your path whether it is well-written or not. If you don't, only the knowledge that it brings something else to the table - neuroscientific research, anthropological connections, startling political or religious tendencies of the breed - would attract you. A negative or positive review will only move the book up or down on your list a limited amount.
It's fine. It's funny but not uproarious, solidly informative, and touches all the bases you want it to. Our recently-discussed family culture being what it is, I have friends and relatives who keep occurring to me while reading this, who will have it lent to them when I'm finished.
The structure is similar to Jennings's Maphead, each chapter discussing a single aspect of triviadom exhaustively: college bowl quizzes, radio history, or Stevens Point, WI all threaded loosely together with his discussion of what it's like to apply, get selected, compete on Jeopardy, and return to regular life. Rather like "I'll take geocaching for 600, Alex." So Jennings has learned to think that way, in lists and categories.
Update: On p 136, Jennings makes the association between 50's black-and-white photography and morality contrasted with 60's color, realistic, more complicated world. I've been harping on this for years. There is a powerful association here that completely overwhelms logical thinking and further solidifies the narrative for emotive, aesthetic reasons. Not to mention that for boomers, the primary perpetuators of this nonsense, they are describing the morality they were told when they were eight years old versus the one they were told at eighteen, and drawing Important sociological and cultural understandings from this.
Ah, this is perhaps my one contribution to understanding the times, and thus I am Likely annoyed simply because it has never caught on.