As someone who spent my childhood in upcountry Thailand, went to state schools there and later in Bangkok and had an advance degree from a US University, I thought i would share with my countrymen how we perceive the King. My conversations with friends, colleagues, and most of the comments here by Thai readers/reviewers say I was totally wrong.
The book hits the nail in its head when it says that most thai my generation (I was born in the turbulent year 1976, when the right-wing government crushed student protestors and the King declared the event "the saddest day in Thai history") have always seen the King in the best of lights - and it was not something that wasn't well-planned by someone. In retrospect, I agree with the author about how the palace has orchestrated all their efforts on setting the royals in the best of lights, i.e. making all the royal projects look far more important and successful than their real worths by downplaying efforts by governments, presenting the royals in the way of super-human, in every aspect possible. When I was a young adult, I did not have a second thought about what the media was protraying the king and the royal family, i accepted it as truths and I don't have any reason to believe that most of my countrymen would see things otherwise - everything was so grand, so well orchestrated and thus so believeable.
One notable point that I think Handley sums up the sentiment of many Thai very nicely is when he briefly discussed another biography on King Bhumibol "The Revolutionary King" (which I also read several years back) that it was probably for the consumption of a small group of educated Thais who tend to be more ready to accept what's written in English than those written in Thai (for several reasons, for one, they believe the author can escape the lesse majeste by saying negative things about the King in English) My view about the King has always been similar to the one protrayed in "The Revolutionary King", which puts the King as a very capable person though with some minor flaws - which make it easier to swallow than "The Perfect One" image that the Palace media has always been projecting. Deep down, I believe, many Thais think of the King as human, yet a very respectable one (though many choose to live with the fairy tale that he is a true semi-god), so when we hear negative minor points about him, we think it could all be possible and make him even more humane yet more likable. This could be the original purpose of the "Revolutionary King" - reinforcing the King's image to the elite Thai lot. The book was written by the person who wrote "The Man called Intreprid" which was translated by the King himself.
Overall, Handley convincingly argue his case that things could be looked at in a very different perspective. He backs up his arguements with well-researched evidence many anecdotes the average Thai would have heard of. For me I haven't heard of just about half (probably more for even younger people), the others are totally new to me.
I highly recommend this book to any Thai who want to understand the country and the monarchy better, in a more objective way. This book doesn't make me love the country and the King less. It makes me understand the King better, in a more realistic way.
I also recommend an academic piece by McCargo "Network Monarchy" if you find this book interesting.