It's surprising that the authors put so much time into researching the architectural heritage of the word heroic, but appeared to not do the same for brutalism.

It's surprising that the authors put so much time into researching the architectural heritage of the word heroic, but appeared to not do the same for brutalism. There's no mention of the word 'brut' - a reference to the raw, unfinished appearance used in early works identified by critics as forming a movement. Semantically it has nothing to do with the word brutal (meaning savage, etc.) , but it's a convenient leap for those imposing what they see an the ideology behind it. In reality it's a very broad movement spanning decades, continents and covering a massive variety of design intentions. Writing off all of it is as closed minded as writing off all of impressionism, etc. There are fantastic achievements and also-rans in any group. I personally have a fondness for many of them, as I find the majority of modern civic architecture is forgettable and unambitious, and glass and steel do not automatically trump concrete and brick. But I would never claim to love it all. There is a fantastic resource at www.sosbrutalism.org which contextualises classic examples in time and location is worth a few minutes of your time.