What did you think? Were the people's stories compelling? Did you like Egan's writing style?
I really liked the book. It was very compelling and informative and detailed. And the writing style was very nice, I thought.
About the only negative aspect of the book for me was that I felt like it ended weakly. I've noticed that about a lot of non-fiction books like this -- they start out really strong and detailed, but then toward the end, it's as though the author got tired of researching and writing and just skimmed over the last sections.
Was it just me, or did you all feel like the end wasn't as good as the beginning and middle?
I LOVED it from beginning to end. I love that he found people who had survived that time and were still alive to tell their stories (or stories of their relatives). The anecdotal parts were well integrated with the historical material. It's a unique contribution to both journalism and history. (And it inspired me to revisit "Grapes of Wrath," which I now think is not only the great American novel, but also, with the creation of Ma Joad, a great feminist manifesto!)
I thought it was really good. Writing engaging history books is a special talent, I think. The personal anecdotes were well-integrated, as you said, and Egan inserted his personal commentary subtly. I actually liked the ending a lot, with Roosevelt's visit to Amarillo.
6 comments:
I hope no one minds if I rejoin the group -- I read this book and I'd love to discuss it with all of you!
What did you think? Were the people's stories compelling? Did you like Egan's writing style?
I really liked the book. It was very compelling and informative and detailed. And the writing style was very nice, I thought.
About the only negative aspect of the book for me was that I felt like it ended weakly. I've noticed that about a lot of non-fiction books like this -- they start out really strong and detailed, but then toward the end, it's as though the author got tired of researching and writing and just skimmed over the last sections.
Was it just me, or did you all feel like the end wasn't as good as the beginning and middle?
I LOVED it from beginning to end. I love that he found people who had survived that time and were still alive to tell their stories (or stories of their relatives). The anecdotal parts were well integrated with the historical material. It's a unique contribution to both journalism and history. (And it inspired me to revisit "Grapes of Wrath," which I now think is not only the great American novel, but also, with the creation of Ma Joad, a great feminist manifesto!)
Thanks for picking it!
I thought it was really good. Writing engaging history books is a special talent, I think. The personal anecdotes were well-integrated, as you said, and Egan inserted his personal commentary subtly. I actually liked the ending a lot, with Roosevelt's visit to Amarillo.
And it rained at the end, on FDR. How great. "Grapes of Wrath" also ends with rain, so maybe that was a nod to Steinbeck.
He's a vivid storyteller. I made a note of this early on:
"The country had one foot in the fields, one foot in a bathtub of gin in the city."
Marvelous.
Post a Comment