This book seems to have been written mainly for an audience of professional Marlowe scholars. General readers will find it frustrating and confusing. His writing often wanders all over the place. For example, in reference to Marlowe's activities as spy, Honan writes, "He involved himself in some duplicity, if not in faithlessness and treachery, with regard to fellow scholars at Cambridge" (109), suggesting that Marlowe may have betrayed some of his fellow students with Catholic sympathies. But the point is frustratingly dropped until some 44 pages later, when Honan observes that "we cannot be certain that he betrayed Corpus [i.e. Cambridge University] men, or lured them as a provocateur" (153), seemingly contradicting his earlier point. Because his writing tends to wander, the story of Marlowe's life is hard to follow in Honan's account. Important contexts, such as espionage under Queen Elizabeth, and patronage, are not well-explained. Honan assumes that readers already have a detailed knowledge of these subjects.
An account like this necessarily involves substantial speculation, since the documentary evidence is quite spotty. Readers need to know exactly what the historical evidence is, and where speculation begins. Honan's discussion of the documentary evidence is quite uneven. In some places he gives a detailed account, but in many other places, he simply leaves this essential information out. As a result, the reader is often wondering about the historical basis for Honan's account. He often fails to distinguish fact from speculation.
One useful feature is an appendix which reproduces some important historical documents including the so-called Baines libel and coroner's inquest of Marlowe's death.