I've been a photographer, and am now returning to where it all started - drawing and painting. Personally, I don't like photographs that look like paintings done centuries ago. For that reason, I disliked Seidner's book. I found it derivative, more reminiscent of Ingres than Sargent. It was a cute concept and the subjects played along.
Let's get back to lighting.
Marvin has eloquently expressed his preference for multiple lights. I prefer to use multiple lights. I've had to learn to use multiple lights, since my business depended on it. I've also gotten great results from a large diffused single light source (a light aimed into a white cardboard reflector) or shooting outdoors in open shade. If the light is soft enough so that the highlights don't get blocked out and close enough so that the shadows show substantial detail, one light source is adequate. Multiple light sources add a certain nuance that isn't possible to achieve with one light. To each his own. If you are happy with your own personal results, and if your clients are happy, then there is no reason to change. Either way, the only way to learn is to practice, practice, practice. There is no magic formula that will work for everyone.
As for the photography books. I have not seen any that espoused 'overpowering' the subject with a multitude of lights. The ones that I've seen usually have examples of what each light does. It is really up to you to decide whether you want to or need to use that light. I've seen good and mediocre photography books. I've also seen good and mediocre painting books, specifically where the use of lighting is concerned.
Would you say the problem with painting books is that painters write them? Just kidding.
Here are some more sources -
http://www.lightingmagic.com/
http://deancollins.com/flvideo.html
Dean Collins is a photographer that has spent a lifetime refining his knowledge of lighting. In particular, these two videos might be very useful.
LIGHTING BASICS 1