I think that's largely correct, but what's interesting/somewhat frustrating is that it seems that working with Odhinn and the Runes is a part of her own tradition, she just seems to think it's somewhat recent, artificial, and constructed, but is totally fine with that. For me, it smacks a bit too much of the whole "it's all archetypes and depth psychology" school that I found so sterile when I gave it a whirl. And yeah, the lack of concision is real, though as I said in the review, the level of detail in the historical evidence reviewed is welcome, even if I mostly disagree with the case she tries to build from it.

Cheers,
Jeff