I am a grad student that has been working on Kant for many years, and this is quite honestly the worst book I have ever come across in the field of Kant studies. It is intended to be a student's guide to the central theme of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. In fact, it contains a treatment of the transcendental aesthetic and analytic to which there is appended a brief consideration of Kant's understanding of the self or the mind/body problem and some suggestions as to how Kant would have done much better to eliminate all a priori concepts (?!). According to Savile, the central theme of the critique is how empirical knowledge is possible. There is no mention at all of the possibility of metaphysics, or of the relationship of the critique to Kant's moral philosophy (limiting reason to make way for morality). Strangely enough, the issue of synthetic a priori judgments is introduced almost as an afterthought in the middle of the chapter on the aesthetic, and the problem as to the source of the necessity of these judgments does not arise. I will not bother to list the strange errors that abound in this book, but to show simply how out of thouch this author is: He speaks often of our "empirical experience of things in themselves" - something he claims Kant readily admits.
He is also very careless. For example, he defines transcendental litterally as a property of a thing in virtue of which it is possible. Nope. no mention of conditions of possibility of knowledge without regard to objects that are given, or anthing like that. So according to Savile, both "being made of wood" and "not being made of red kryptonite" would be transcendental properties of my pencil.

Historically speaking the book is also a mess. Savile speaks continuously of Locke's and especially Berkeley's influence on Kant, although the former only influenced Kant indirectly through Leibniz's New Essays (Kand did not read English), and it is a well established fact that Berekeley had no demonstrable influence on Kant at all. I will not go on. Suffice it to say, in addition to this the author is very cocky - He consults none (!) of the secondary literature on the critique, and claims that this is a plus for his book ("doesn't get sidetracked by the voluminous secondary literature"). Not only this, he implies throughout that all secondary literature on the Critique is useless stuff written by blockheads that parret the masters words. Rubbish. Blackwell should be ashamed of publishing something like this.