[gmw]

I'm still not finished, but like Catlady I'm content to watch the discussion of a non-fiction book while still reading.

I am surprised at the strength of negative feeling for this book. It would seem to mirror how I felt about The Radium Girls - but I don't feel that way about this one ... or I didn't. My impression is changing.


The introduction (part 1, chapter 1):

I thought it was a pleasing way to introduce the story. It did seem a bit odd to have part 1 entitled "The Forgotten Story" and then lead in with this brief chapter showing that it had not been forgotten. But I saw no particular offensiveness. It did not seem, to me, to be an attempt to make it an American story. ... But then I was not aware of the inaccuracy issybird points out regarding when, and how, the Christmas tree became a regular event. It seems that it truly was an almost entirely commercial venture at the start, and then taken over by government when commerce lost interest. That is very different to the impression Bacon gave in the lead-in chapter, and is the sort of distortion that I find quite offensive in this sort of book; now it seems that I have to second-guess everything he presents.


The lead-in to the event:

I can certainly agree that the Barss part of the tale was given in excess, although I did find it interesting. I would attribute this excess to the author trying to give the reader a more personal stake in the story, but I do think he takes it too far. This becomes particularly apparent when, on returning to Halifax, about chapter 12 or 13, I realised I'd lost my place amid everything that Bacon had been setting up before. It took a while to remember who all the other players were.

Like Catlady, one of the things I like about the book (so far, anyway) has been the quirky connections and odd little historical asides. (eg: The relatively recent acceptance by doctors that they should wash their hands.) I think this sort of detail makes sure the reader really understands that we are talking about a different time, a different way of thinking. It helps stop the reader from making misplaced modern judgements that do not apply. (You might see that I'm thinking of The Radium Girls again here, which covers an overlapping period with this book, but makes it so easy to make modern assumptions.)

Of course, discovering that some of these tid-bit facts are blatant errors (Halifax UK vs Halifax Canada for the company Willis & Bates as manufacturers of the doughboy helmets) is very disappointing, and calls into question the other things stated as fact.

I have found some other oddities, like in Chapter 12: "Picric acid is notoriously unstable, and even more so when dry, because it’s especially sensitive to friction and shock—so sensitive, in fact, that when picric acid is stored in labs, merely turning the lid of a jar of the chemical, if dried particles are stuck between the bottle and the stopper, can blow up the entire lab." and then a few paragraphs later "while picric acid doesn’t explode until it reaches 572 degrees Fahrenheit". Of course the distinction is presumably between wet and dry versions, but the text leaves conflicting impressions, and when it comes to historical work, impressions are important.


I'm still reading about the event itself.

It's not a hard book to read, and much less annoying to me than I found with The Radium Girls, at least in general writing terms. Discovering that this book has errors of substance is a concern. Learning here that much of the book was apparently "borrowed" from the Janet Kitz book is also a (big) concern.