Great Subject, Mediocre Writing
921239
What a disappointment! I was so excited to read this book, but it wasn't 50 pages before my hopes and expectations were dashed. It's poorly written and poorly organized, with far too much emphasis on dates, too many names that only come up once, and too little emotional depth. It read like a fourth-grade historical account, as opposed to a piece of adult literature.
1232767
It is a pity that this book is not better written.  The material is fascinating, but the writer is a genuine obstacle to enjoying the story
2009444
I enjoy Simon Winchester's books. He picks fabulous topics, and sinks his Oxford trained teeth into them. In this case however, his topic is not as obscure as some of his previous choices and arguably didn't need retelling by yet another author.

Moreover, certain themes in the book are very poorly developed and could have been left out to good effect. The links between the earthquake and the origins of the Pentecostal church are poorly explicated and tenuous. It seems Winchester devotes the ink he does because he so bemused himself in a previous book with "similar" links between the rise of radical Islam and the eruption of Krakatoa. More problematic than these kinds of ruminations, from a scientific standpoint, is his watery invocation of the concept of Gaia theory as a "context" for the 1906 earthquake story. He invokes it, but never satisfactorily explicates why it is applicable, which would be a hard case indeed in my estimation.

I also empathize with many of the complaints found in the reviews on this site regarding some aspects of Winchester's writing style. However, I suggest listening to his unabridged audiobooks, read by Winchester himself. The prose seems far more natural when he speaks it than when I read it.

It also seems that his writing merits better editing; and in about one grievous instance on average per book, fact checking.

In "The Map that Changed the World" he erroneously refers to the extinct group of flying reptile, the pterodactyl, as the "bird progenitor" (page 109), which they certainly are not (the theropod dinosaurs are). Most twelve-year olds with a T-rex pattern on their pajamas know that.

In "A Crack in the Edge of the World" Winchester makes another egregious misstatement of fact. "And in 1867 Secretary of State William Seward bought from Russia, in what many at the time thought was an improvident waste of funds, the nearly 600,000 acres of Alaska." The date is correct, but the area is wrong by orders of magnitude. I live in Alaska, and just last year we had over ten times that many acres burn in forest fires alone. Alaska is a big state, and Alaskans don't like it when people get that wrong! The acreage purchased by the US was 378,242,560 according the Department of the Interior. As far as I can tell, Winchester has his units wrong, since the purchase equates to 591,004 square miles, not acres. This could be an excusable mistake, except separated by only one sentence, he states the correct area for the Louisiana Purchase, "530 million acres" (pretty close:  529,911,680 acres). Even this might be excused as perhaps a typo of sorts, but in his audiobook he emphatically charges right through the paragraph, apparently not catching, even when read aloud, the error made so obvious by the juxtaposition of figures. I suppose I'm being overly harsh on the Oxford trained geologist. They apparently don't emphasize American geography.

In sum, in this review I seem to come down hard on the book. Not so, I've given it 4-stars because apart from the few issues I've mentioned, it is an entertaining and accessible read about an important subject for modern audiences. However, with the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake's centennial just around the corner, I don't think I'll end my personal scholarship after this book. Next I'm headed for Philip Fradkin's "The Great Earthquake and Firestorms of 1906." Fradkin's familiarity and excellent writings on California and the West promise his book will be authoritative and written with a deep understanding of the place. Hailing from California myself, I experienced first-hand the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, and great-grandparents of mine survived the 1906 quake. I'm considering the wisdom of ending this family tradition, but hell, what did I do? I moved to Alaska . . .
2944862
John Keegan's mastery of the material is obvious.  However, he picked an amorphous topic:  whether Military Intelligence "helps".  Keegan uses historical vignettes through the ages to prove his point, that Military Intelligence is usually not decisive.
However, the question seems poorly formed.  Military Intelligence means different things in different epochs, and in different situations in the same timeframe.  Also, the manner in which it may or may not be decisive is also situation specific.  Worse, not all of Keegan's historical vignettes prove his point.
The result is a book full of interesting tales, but lacking clear synthesis.  This great historian's talent and our time are wasted on a poorly formed topic.
1418059
The best thing about this book is its subject matter.  Unfortunately, the writing is so amateurish it made me wince at times.  Also, contrary to what some of the reviews say, the authors do not always "get the details right."  Furthermore, they should have worked harder at making the narrator a little more three-dimensional, a little less high-minded and admirable (likewise her oh-so-lovable yet totally faceless parents and grandmother).  I found excruciating the sections in which the narrator encounters nannies from less privileged backgrounds and lets us know that -- wait! you'll never guess! -- they are people, too.  This revelation seems very self-congratulatory on the part of the authors.  It may be news for some, but not for the rest of us.
3398163
This book has some good information. Unfortunately, it drags badly. There is too much academic blather. This is too bad, because the topic is fascinating and timely. The author is well informed, but seems to be writing to an academic audience, rather than to an interested public.
3607155
The epidemic of "sleeping sickness" that occurred globally in the early decades of the 20th century is a pretty fascinating topic, about which little has been written for the general reader (and arguably not much for the specialist in either medicine or history).  Asleep tackles this topic, but does so in a way that seems to lack any structure and does not go into depth in many areas.  It reads to me like a pretty solid first draft.  Specifically, the "case reports" were disruptive and did not connect to the narrative sections on either side, and the chapter chronology was not obviously logical (nor was the thematic nature clear -- in general, the chapters seemed poorly structured).  Her authorial voice was pretty great -- I wanted to hear more, and she told the story in a very engaging and sympathetic fashion.  But the structure was infuriating at times, and I wanted to red-pencil it or whatever the Kindle equivalent would be.  Note that I have a background in epidemiology, not in editing or science writing, so YMMV.
71348
This is a great topic and I have high regard and empathy for Kristin. My beef with this book is that it is poorly written and disjointed, sometimes sounding like a biography and sometimes sounding like a college term paper. I bought this book after seeing Kristin on Anderson Cooper, but the book really didn't add anything or make the story more interesting.
2409671
The historical research for this book is solid, indeed exemplary. If publishers demanded such thoroughness for historical writing, there would be far fewer books published, and there would be a lot less nonsense.

Unfortunately, the author seemed to miss some basics in his English composition courses. The writing is competent, but stiff and dull. The author seems to have three or four basic sentences into which he continuously plugs his data. The writing does not breathe. It does not provoke the imagination. In this book is much human drama, but the writing conceals the drama with its repetitive, formulaic style.

I wanted to like this book, having purchased it shortly after a visit to Fort Casey. It took many months for me to slog through it.
3460248
This book has some incredibly intriguing subject matter, from the redemption of Darryl Strawberry in 1996 to a nun who gives backrubs and advice in the stands, and many other enjoyable and colorful characters besides. But the author spends so much time hand-wringing about his own  angst (over whether he, as a journalist, will write a "hatchet"  piece for Rolling Stone), that he rarely focuses on the actual game.  Perhaps that's because he himself was so distracted by his angst that it  was all he could really write about. By halfway through the book, I was  wishing to hear less about Neal Karlen and more about the game itself. The  scenes that take place on the field are few, despite the annoying sense  that Karlen gives that a drama is being played out there... we're only  seeing glimpses of it. Karlen also repeats himself often--as if he intended  different chapters to stand alone as articles?--causing him to tell the  same stories and trivial facts repeatedly, and yet often seemingly skip the  meat of the story. His editors should have done a more careful job. It's a  shame Karlen gets in the way of his own story--maybe Rolling Stone ruined  him as a writer.
Nonetheless, I still recommend this book because its  subjects are so unique and so worth hearing about! What a wild tale! Every  baseball fan should know of some of the unique characters and history  associated with the Saints.
1539935
The general topic of this work is interesting and timely, and Joe Barrett does a solid job as reader.

However, the storyline falls flat, tends to be overly-hokey, and at times is excruciating to witness.  While the author does a good job of describing what could happen if a typical American town were to be cut off from power and communications, especially with relation to our dependence on modern technology and an array of medical treatments and drugs, as well as our overall frailty, the reaction to this disaster by the portrayed characters seems far less than real.

Forstchen endeavors to make the characters human, but ultimately they come off as barely two-dimensional stereotyped fantasies.  But then again, humans are strange creatures and it's hard to say how we would react to such a catastrophe.  On this element, unfortunately, history is on the side of the author.

I don't think I've ever read a book that indulges so deeply in smoking and cigarettes.  All the main characters and especially the hero either smoke or want to smoke or think about smoking or cigarettes throughout the book.  At stressful points, they really, really enjoy lighting up and bonding with multiple cigarettes, with each puff lovingly described.  It gets more than a little distracting and ends up just bizarre.  I can only assume that either the author throughly enjoys smoking, or product placement has now reached the novel.

I recommend only with a lot of salt.  Which is too bad, as this is a subject that should be brought to the forefront and seriously discussed at the highest levels.  The vulnerabilities of our power and communication infrastructure are clearly critical, and if this book (despite its difficulties) forces a hard look, then all the better.
4798764
Author Robert Conroy gets the history part pretty OK, but the writing part leaves much to be desired.

Alternative history; I am learning to like it. I greatly enjoyed the trilogy starting with "Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War" by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen, and John Birmingham's trilogy starting with "Weapons of Choice (The Axis of Time Trilogy)." I also enjoy real history; I almost chose teaching of it as a career. And I really appreciate good writing in which characters are devised and illuminated, scenes are described and set, and interesting stories are told with language that is lush and evocative (see Laurie R. King).

Conroy's two premises are specious: that Great Britain (GB), in the person of Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, takes the opposite action to what they actually took in the Mason and Slidell "affair." These two representatives of GB were taken by Union blockage forces producing a diplomatic affront to GB. Their reaction? To jump into America's Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Why? To put the American colonies back in their economic place.

The second specious premise, that GB's decision would lead the Union to react by invading Canada instead of pursuing the demise of the Confederacy, conflicts with President Lincoln's consistent aim of restoring the Union. But, I guess that's why they call it alternate history.

My problem with this book isn't the flawed premises; it's the absence of interesting and  well-developed characters. The only two I found were minor. The government employee (spy Alan Pinkerton) who was driven to persecute anyone he perceived as not fully supportive of the Union government (or a threat to him), and the runaway slave Hannibal Watson who sought what we all: want freedom, and his family.

The major characters, Nathan Hunter (who flits from scene and around whom the story is supposed to have been built), his love interest Rebecca, and General Winfield Scott seem placed on the pages because Author Conroy needed to execute his alternative premise. Scott is always right, Nathan is always right there where things happen, and Rebecca is pliant. There is no controversy or discovery among any of these. They are like cars and engines in a Lionel train set - they go round and round but never change and grow.

I rated this a two-star book because I enjoy Civil War history, and that's why I finished it. But if one reads the cover, and understands the premise, that's about all one will get out of "1862; A Novel."
2384656
Sorry, I thought this was a very interesting topic, but poor writing in need of editing doesn't excuse the hurdle of making good historical fiction.  The plot was well conceived, but the writing, my god, the writing was sometimes atrocious.
4023123
The subject is fascinating, and the author clearly knows the topic. But, the information is told in such an odd and haphazard way that it is difficult to follow.  I got about half-way through and just couldn't finish. I always finish a book that I start, but in this case, I felt like I was learning nothing and just could not follow any kind of storyline.  Great research, but it needs significantly better organization of the facts.
I also agree with other reviewers that the Wiesenthal bashing is over the top. And, upon reading other reviews, including on the UK Amazon site, I was a bit disappointed to see the author's overly defensive and rather rude comments to a few reviews.  Makes me not overly interested in any of his other works.
2582273
An interesting book, but somehow not as good as I thought it would be. The writing is mediocre-- it almost has a tabloid journalism flavor as the author breathlessly reports on just about every liaison that ever took place among the rich, the powerful and the famous under the roof of the Ritz Hotel during the WWII era, and before and after. The author is a professor at Colby College, but she seems to have made a great effort not to sound scholarly.

I noted a couple of errors that surprised me. Mazzeo says that Serge Diaghilev was a lithe ballet dancer on one page, and, a bit further on, that he was a choreographer. He was fat and an impresario-- even I knew that, and Im no expert on this period. I think she also places him at the Ritz Hotel in 1930, despite the fact that he died in Venice in 1929! She also mistakes where Hemingway killed himself-- saying Key West rather than Idaho, and claims the egregiously fascist Duke and Duchess of Windsor spent WWII in Bermuda rather than in the Bahamas. If she makes these errors, I suspect that there must be a lot more than Im unaware of.  This is really just pop history-- fun but also careless and superficial.
1579926
I wanted so much to love this book.  Elizabeth Woodville, the commoner who captivated a king and became Queen of England, is a fascinating historical figure and I always eagerly anticipate any new book written with her in mind.

Why did this one fail for me?  Surprisingly, it wasn't shoddy research (although you can read reviews here from historians who point out some of the more glaring errors).  Rather, it was the writing itself.  Written in first person narrative, it felt as if the author is "talking down" to the reader; assuming we are idiots.  Points she wants to make are repeated over and over again, usually via dialogue, to the point of frustration.

That said, the book isn't all bad.  There are sly little observations about politics of the time that are both barbed and amusing.  Loved those.  And it's easy to sense that the author holds women (vastly marginalized during this time period) in high esteem.  Kudos for that!

So by the time you balance that bad with the tidbits of good, you end up with an average historical fiction novel.  Nothing to write home about, that's for certain, and no where near the quality of The Other Boleyn Girl.

Would I recommend the novel to my fellow historical-fiction lovers?  No.  But if you absolutely must read it, I suggest using your local library.
1643509
The topics covered in this book are worth learning about and I found myself instantly engaged after reading the first chapter online. However, after getting about halfway through the book, I found myself quite bored. The writing is very dry and the book follows a very cookie cutter format of laying out an experiment then explaining the results with quite a bit of unnecessary filler in between. There are many experiments where the results are quite obvious, and while I understand the need to prove them through experimentation, their explanations are often too drawn out.

This book could have easily been at least one-hundred pages shorter and made its point with far more precision (I don't know if it is just me but there was a definite overuse of exclamation points that made the writing seem less credible). I think perhaps the writer could have taken a few tips from his research to convey his information in a more digestible format.