1491 by Charles Mann is a pop historical non-fiction book about how everything we're taught about American history pre-Columbus is wrong. I loved it—I found it fascinating, inspiring, and tragic.
However, I'm hesitant to suggest it to people because I have no idea how accurate a representation of modern understanding it is. He seems to be very fair to his subject matter, presenting all sides in the debate, but I know that often times the show of being fair can hide major issues with a work.
I'm curious what historians of North and South American history think of the book. I understand this is a vague question, as he might (for example) be totally right about the story of Squanto, while getting figures on the death rate of Native Americans by smallpox completely wrong. But any direction would be appreciated.
I browsed reviews of the book on JSTOR which provides for academic reviews of books but have not read it myself. They are generally positive, saying the book is accurate and readable, but has a few unverified claims.
Nothing about the content of the book would be "revolutionary" or "ground breaking" to anyone who studies early Native Americans. They would likely consider it just a recitation of the accepted narrative, but it may be surprising to the average Joe Public.
I haven't read it but among my ventures of trying to learn about the Inca and Pre Columbus South America, the book has been recommended to me on /r/AskHistorians 4 or 5 times now, I believe it's somewhat accepted.