As a researcher who has done work on this subject, I tend to be baffled by the popularity of books such as this one. On the plus side, and to be fair, the author at least bothered to read some of the more reliable documents (such as the Rehabilitation transcript, Joan's surviving letters, etc) rather than merely the Condemnation transcript; but unfortunately the author didn't seem to pay much attention to the more reliable documents. Yet again, we have here a modern author who credulously accepts many of the accusations made by Joan's enemies while passing over the larger amount of evidence which soundly debunks those accusations, while mixing in a hefty dose of radical politics and speculation, plus page after page in which the text wanders through ancient legends and other such topics to the point that Joan herself is often obscured entirely. A good example of this is the "Ideal Androgyne" chapter, which ignores the extensive testimony from the Rehabilitation transcript: i.e., two of the men who escorted her to Chinon said that they were the ones who first brought up the subject of dressing her in soldiers' clothing (as was standard procedure when bringing a woman through dangerous territory), and several of the clergy who took part in her trial testified that she clung to this clothing and kept her pants and tunic "firmly laced and tied" (i.e., the pants were kept fastened to the tunic so they couldn't be forcibly pulled off) because she had been subjected to attempted rape at the hands of her guards and therefore was afraid of "being violated in the night", to quote one witness. To a scholar of the medieval period none of this comes as a surprise: it was common for women to adopt such clothing for their own defense, and medieval theologians - including St. Thomas Aquinas himself - had ruled that such conduct was permissible if it was being done out of necessity (the Church only condemned the practice if it was done for other reasons, a distinction which Joan's accusers deliberately ignored, as do many modern authors). Despite the author's claims to the contrary, this subject was in fact dealt with at the Rehabilitation, and in fact the Inquisitor devoted an entire section - Chapter 6 of his "Recollectio" - to that subject, and exonerated her of any wrongdoing on that front. He also ruled that her voices were not suspect (despite the author's claims to the contrary), and in fact declared her a martyr ("...for in very truth she always had good reason to trust in her apparitions, for they delivered her, just as they promised, from the prison of the body through martyrdom and a great victory of patience.") Warner's book replaces much of this evidence with speculation, endless political rhetoric, and modern philosophies which have nothing whatsoever to do with 15th century history.
On the point about Régine Pernoud: the charge that Pernoud was a hopeless fan of Charles VII who omitted to mention the letter about the siege of Paris is patently false: the entire text of that letter is included (both in the original language and in translation) in Pernoud's book "Joan of Arc: Her Story" [called simply "Jeanne d'Arc" in the French version], and many of her books contain scathing criticisms of Charles VII. Scholars consider Pernoud to have been one of the best authors on this subject because she was accurate, thorough, and honest in her presentation of the evidence, which is not something that can be said about the book currently under review. And there lies the crux of the issue: historical writing is supposed to be based upon documented evidence, properly analyzed in light of the circumstances of the time period, rather than a mishmash of modern-day politics superimposed upon historical figures and events. This book falls into the latter category, unfortunately.