Caution: Below, I reveal some of the storyline of this book, but I only made it through 30% before I just could not bare it any longer. Hence, it is entirely possible that the rest of the book differs from the part that I read, but I sincerely doubt it. Also, I do not intend to start any political discussions or infer that my opinions are righter than anybody else's. However, if you look at the world as I do, this book will make you want to pull your hair out.

I saw the "Special thanks to Rush Limbaugh" in the prologue, but could not find any references on-line whether that detail reflected on the content of the book. So I decided to ignore it. The book starts well, is actually exciting, and seems to be well written. Then comes a scene in which this supposed champion of suppressed indigenous Mexican farmers discusses his views on the Nicaraguan revolution and the subsequent Contra war: the oppressive and murderous Sandinistas versus the noble cause of the Contras. I read that section several times, because I couldn't believe the author actually thinks that a freedom fighter for the oppressed indigenous proletariat would actually revere the cause of the Contras. I took it as a warning of things to come, but still gave the author the benefit of the doubt. After all, at that point of the book, this character had still been a product of the Mexican upper class and would surely change his mind as he moved into the jungle, right? So on I went, until I arrived at a scene in which this character refuses the Nobel Peace Prize. He gets into this tirade on how the Nobel committee suffers from hypocrisy for having awarded to and not since revoked this prize from Yasser Arafat, this murderous thug and criminal … and on and on and on. Mind you, only Arafat is lynched in this section. On top of that, the author then proceeds to argue that the European audience at this Nobel Peace Prize Award Dinner actually congratulates and reveres this character for his (not very diplomatic or subtle) proclamation of this apparently universally held belief. Strike two. I make it through a couple of sections that infer that the US way of life is just what God intended for the world. Then another character doing a mission trip in Jerusalem comes across a dozen Palestinian street protesters waving signs and shouting "Death to America". When the author followed up this scene with the leading phrase "… And The Evil Begins…" I had enough and stopped reading. At this point I had to assume that the author was going to continue this way throughout the rest of the book.

So, in conclusion, this book's style is actually exciting enough to keep you going. However, the special thanks to Rush Limbaugh should serve as a warning that his opinions saturate this book. Therefore, if Limbaugh and Fox News make you cringe, stay away from this book. If you agree with their assessments of the state of the world, this book is likely a good read.

Initially, the book is as hard to piece together as the book of Revelation but as you read on it begins to grab you. The first 100 pages set up the remaining 196. I am glad I did not give up on it. Britt Gillette forcefully raises the issue of Islam and man's sin nature. All man's sin nature. I failed to realize the vastness of the science of nano-technology and enjoyed those aspects of the book, The last parts of the book is provocative as the Bible comes alive using modern technology as plagues. It is an interesting end-times "nano-thriller." Fun for all ages.

Although I agree that this is a fairly quick read, I found it difficult to like, whether looking at it as a techno or political thriller, technical exposition on nanotechnology, or Revelations allegory. To get an idea of where I'm coming from, I tend towards books (when reading for fun) from authors that are relatively "well researched"* such as Michael Crichton, Tom Clancy, Umberto Eco, or (a little ashamed to admit :) Dan Brown. And to be quite frank, I found "Conquest of Paradise" to be, well, quite pedestrian -- there was simply not enough details, technical or otherwise, to make sense of the characters and their motivations, the various plot twists, and, most of all, the nanotechnology that is used as a plot device.
For example, there is a character in the book who serves as a leader of several of the Latin American Contra movements. It is straining (at best) when this character becomes an ardent opponent to Isamic terrorists without so much of an explaination except that he "fights for freedom and liberty." That is a nice sound-bite from our world leaders when they talk on CNN, but even those with cursory knowledge of the contra movements would think that this character would have at least somewhat of an understanding behind the motivations of "modern day" terrorists. To leave out even a discussion of the subject leaves leaves me thinking that either this character doesn't even express his true motivations on pages the author writes, or that the author hasn't done anything more than cursory research on the current fundamentalist movements and their roots.
In addition, given that we are observing the harrowing events in the book from the perspective of the leaders at the highest levels of world government, the lack of technical detail in the procedural processes that occur, the locations in the novel, and the outright colloquial nature of the characters' conversations and speeches (even the ones that are supposed to be "awe inspiring") makes it all very hard to take seriously. It feels like a B-grade "TV-movie" depiction of the people and processes in the government. This would have played out much better if it was told from the perspective of, say, an ordinary person living in such times; lack of details and technicalities then would be understandable.
Further, perhaps due to the fact that I am a scientist (though not in this field), the cursory treatment of nanotechnology, especially given its central role to the plot (and its use as analogy to events in Revelations), really makes it difficult for me to suspend disbelief at all. If it was some purely science fiction technology, then that would be one thing, but Gillette is trying to pass off these scenarios as realistically plausible, and anyone with a rudamentary eduction in high school physics (i.e. conservation of energy, momentum, etc.) should find the events in the book very, very difficult to believe even *with* an accompanying technical explanation. But even that is lacking. The "scientists" and engineers in the book use vague non-techical terms like "active shield" which may suffice for those without technical background, but even if you have only read the popular literature on the subject (such as Drexler's Engines of Creation and Levy's Artificial Life, both excellent, accessible tomes), the fact that everyone in the book talks about nanotech the way only a lay politician would is disturbing. Nonetheless, I must admit that even despite Crichton's amazingly well thoughtout lay-explainations in Prey, I still found events in Prey to be a bit unbelievable.
Finally, I had a couple of nitpicks: First, although all authors have their political persuasions, there seem to be several scenes littered throughout this book with no point other than to express a political opinion (for example, there is a scene involving the International Criminal Court which I can't fit in the plot at all, a NAFTA conversation involving a not-so-subtle poke at a particular American president, and a completely extreneous scene involving a particular diamond company). Second, although many reviewers disliked the opening 100 page exposition, I found this section to be the high point of the book -- although nothing really "happens," the characters do develop and the smaller scale of the events allow us to appreciate them much more than the later 200 pages, where they are essentially black-and-white protagonists with unchanging, singular goals acting at the mercy of the larger-than-life plotline. Third, I think part of the "muddled" feeling other reviewers got is from the interspersed "cut scenes" that introduce characters which never (or rarely) show up ever again. Fourth, though this might be an intentional lapse used to essentuate particular characters, the discussions of different religions and cultures is a very, very underdeveloped and is a simplified view of the world that is representative of almost no modern government leaders (even those who the media paint in such ways) -- these people went to school, they deal with multitudes of faiths and backgrounds on a day-to-day basis; they know that there is much more to the world than Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. But then this is just a 300-page novel, so perhaps that can be excused. And finally, I don't understand why Gillette makes up names for characters that are clearly direct analogs of figures in real life. Maybe it is polite, but when their details match those of the people we know so directly, it is a bit weird (makes you snicker a bit :).
It is certainly not a terrible read, though not one I can recommend either.
* By "well researched" I do not mean 100% (or even near 100%) technical accuracy; just enough emersive details in order to suspend disbelief in the lay (but educated) reader.

I like the concept and the technical bits and philosophical questions are worth a read. The plot however is a muddled mess. There are really only two characters you want to care about but they are not given the room to develop into believable, three dimensional characters. The novel is suppose to be tied in with end-times as in the book of Revalation, but I don't see it.