Response to the book has been mostly positive, both critically and commercially. Critic Jennifer Kay said, "
The Book of General Ignorance won't make you feel dumb. It's really a call to be more curious." Liesl Schillinger in
The New York Times praised the book for gathering "so much repeatable wisdom […] in one place," asking the rhetorical question of interested parties—"In the Information Age, can you afford to remain ignorant of these precious factoids?" Doug Brown reviewed the book for Powell's Books, noting that it has a "UK-heavy emphasis", and that "Overall The Book of General Ignorance is a lot of fun, and you're guaranteed to learn something you didn't know (but thought you did)." Aileen Marshall rates it with the maximum five stars for the Librarian Book Review at TeensPoint.org, writing: This book is just fun to read, alone or with your spouse or friends. And it broadens your horizon. Even if you don't plan on attending a trivia-gameshow anytime soon, your newly acquired knowledge will be beneficial when the need for smalltalk arises. The book was favourably reviewed in other places, among them such American newspapers as the
Los Angeles Times,
Monsters and Critics,
USA Today,
Seattle Times,
Chicago Sun-Times and
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. However, some reviews were critical; Kirsten Garrett suggested in her review that,
The Book of General Ignorance "is in danger of being too smart for its own good. In fact, a bit smart-arse." She also noted that "It's a disgrace that in a book of this kind there is no index. It's not possible to look up a subject about which you are ignorant". Berkman's complaints, however, are countered by his admission that "this book is already the amusing trivia success of the season," containing many "eye-watering" and "eyebrow-raising" facts, even if he thinks it a little smug. Both the "question and answer" format and indexing issues were addressed for the follow-up
The Book of Animal Ignorance, which had an alphabetised structure (with contents page), and stand-alone facts, rather than responses. ==Sequels==