As you'd expect from a book that's meant to be a concise and introductory text on memory, this book covers the highlights of memory research from the past century. But it also leaves a lot unsaid and portrays a very specific (but not necessarily universally accepted) perspective on memory.
As a full-time memory researcher, of course I'm going to gripe about *something* not being in the book. And, in truth, Foster does a pretty remarkable job of packing a lot of material into a tiny book. The book covers different memory systems (short- and long-term memory), influential theories like levels-of-processing, as well as plenty on false memory. And Foster rightly hammers home the point that memory is not a passive storage system.
That said, I was disappointed with major sections of the book and I think it perpetuates myths and misconceptions about memory. For instance, the sections on long, short, and working memory present a "systems-based" view of memory, where memory is divided into distinct modules which presumably have different principles. While this view should certainly be mentioned on any book on memory, Foster never mentions that this view has been challenged repeatedly: the distinction between long/short/working memory may be a false one that psychologists have foisted on the public. Also, the evidence for subsystems of working memory like the phonological loop, typically in the form of articulation span, has been widely challenged (if not completely discredited). It's not that Foster should consider every article ever written on memory -- that's impossible -- but the systems-based view has enjoyed a wide popularity that is now fading in favor of functionally-oriented views of memory.
Memory research is a huge field so it's hard to expect someone to know the whole domain inside and out. And, as I said, the book generally does a good job of presenting ideas clearly, but it's disappointing that the book advocates such a specific conception of the architecture of memory without commenting on alternatives.