[CRussel]

Oh, I'd agree Hersey's Hiroshima was superior in every way. And I almost nominated it again, but decided to go with something away from the main theatres of the war. And I'm glad I did, even though some of you really didn't like it. And I get that, but maybe we're looking for something a bit different in a history read.

I'll be brutally honest -- I'm never going to read or want to read a thoroughly scholorly tome on war or history. I'm past the age where I find that interesting, and I no longer have to read them for an assignment or school. I enjoy reading history when it makes the history personal and interesting. I find I learn and retain far more from that sort of treatment than I do from something I might have read for a college course. Does that make me shallow? Perhaps, but if so, I accept it and embrace it. At least I try to learn from the mistakes of history. (I'd point out some current examples, but that would take us into P&R territory!)

And OK, I agree completely about Barss. I never quite understood the focus on him, he was the least interesting of the characters chronicled in many ways. But this was not a story about Barss, nor was the book primarily about him no matter how often he intruded. To me, this was a book about how the people of Halifax died and survived the greatest non-nuclear human-caused disaster in history, and how they worked to recover from it. And it was also very much a book about the events that led to that disaster. And while I can certainly see the limitations of the book, ultimately I found it compelling and interesting.