First of my observations. I started out reading, rather than listening, though I ended up doing a lot of both. But in reading the Prologue, very early on, was the comment:
Quote:
|
My investigation became more like an obsession. I would walk any trail if it meant finding a trace of one of the computers at its end.
|
A telling point about this as history. Clearly, it grabbed the historian as a person as much as a historian, and that shows sometimes in the writing. I suspect some of that obsession leads to what
issybird describes. And, while I agree with her on one level, it's exactly that obsession that results in the level of detail we find here. Plus, ultimately, it made the story more compelling for me, personally. Yes, a totally dispassionate narrative might be more historically appropriate, but, frankly, if the story isn't good enough to get the author excited, what's the chance I will be.
Also:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by issybird
That said, I'm fascinated by the world-building, early days at Langley. For me it's a case of knowing the generalities of the creation of the US war machine, but being entirely ignorant of the particulars related here. I think specifics make for much more evocative history than broad swaths.
|
I completely agree. Even though I grew up in the midst of the Space War, and was completely a geek about it, I admit I knew almost nothing of this. Even the term 'computers' as it applies to
people was unknown to me until more recent years when talking about some of the events of WWII around the Enigma machine.
Finally, I would argue that the 'obsession' that leads to perhaps overwritten prose, is what ultimately drives the level of detail here.