I picked up this book because I was interested in how Japanese differed from familiar Western languages, but I didn't want to learn Japanese. The book served this purpose tolerably well. Not surprisingly, it would have been more useful if I had known a little Japanese. It would also have been more interesting if it had been written by someone with a background in the languages of Europe. The author apparently knows some English, and the translator has fleshed out some comparisons there. But all too often the book makes statements such as "Supposedly in German..." or "Expert X says that French...." Most of those statements are correct but (surprisingly) a few are clearly false.
Most important, the author's purpose is not really to introduce Japanese to foreigners. It was written in Japanese, in 1957, after all. Kindaichi's main concern is more political: to argue that Japanese is a sophisticated and complex modern language suitable to a civilized people. In other words, he wants to show that Japanese is as "good," or nearly "good," a language as English, French, or German. He also wants to show that it is more civilized than the languages of the Pacific - - though comparison with East Asian literary languages are less common than one might expect. This task strikes me as an odd one, and it obviously reflects Japanese concerns of the 1950s. (One of the other reviewers claims that the author places fast and loose with some facts to make his political point - - I'm not in a position to judge, but it doesn't surprise me.)
This political purpose means that he allocates space differently than I would have liked. For example, he notes that Japanese does not have the variety of animal terms found in European languages (such as bull, steer, cow, calf, and ox for a single species). However, he argues that this does not make Japanese inferior to European languages because Japanese has a similar variety of terms for fish.
This kind of "judgmental linguistics" is always present, and to the modern reader, unnecessary. I would have liked to see more comparisons of phonetics, syntax, and other linguistic questions. Kindaichi's concerns and mine did overlap in areas of pragmatics and literary style, which I found to be the most interesting parts of the book.