This was an absolutely fascinating book. Shapiro's extensive research (and resources) shows in the sheer quantity of examples he brings and, while he never really writes them into a narrative, the chapter-long vignettes are clearly more important to him and, arguably, to us as readers. The chapters on R. Hirsch and R. Kook were the most interesting to me, although all the examples were just fascinating.
I found it almost strange that Shapiro writes the book as if its role is solely as...hmm, a historical record of tampering with the historical record rather than a subjective evaluation of the relative merits or disadvantages of doing so. There's a simmering sense of disapproval beneath the surface, evidenced as much by Shapiro's other works as by the writing of the book in the first place, but he never actually critiques the process of "changing the immutable" or makes suggestions as to its place in Judaism. I'm not sure what to do with that, other than perhaps mull it over.
I do wonder, though, whether this history in turn can legitimize the shift towards women's participation, friendliness towards LGBTQ, rethinking the way we engage in public ritual. If one can change a 19th century rabbi's opinion using that argument that, had the rabbi known then what we know now, he would had agreed with us...why not make that case for women rabbis (e.g.)?
It's worth thinking about - as so many things are - and might go part of the way towards explaining Shapiro's reticence to condemn a practice that, as an academic, seems inimical to proper research practices. Or I'm just projecting.