|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
08-16-2018, 10:12 PM | #31 |
Snoozing in the sun
Posts: 10,135
Karma: 115423645
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Device: iPad Mini, Kobo Touch
|
I certainly wasn't suggesting that you are a dumb American, and I don't expect people to know who was Prince of Wales when. My point was that if someone wanted to clarify who this person was, it can be looked up. It doesn't need to be included in tedious detail in the text.
Probably my problem is that I have expectations of a book claiming to be a non-fiction history, as opposed to historical fiction, because history is a particular interest of mine. So I hope we can just agree to disagree on the book and the way it is written. |
08-16-2018, 11:20 PM | #32 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,342
Karma: 52398889
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
Quote:
If someone throws a name at me, I want a clue. Sometimes I need it, sometimes I don't. But how does it hurt anything to have that clue included? We don't all have the same frames of reference in history, literature, popular culture, whatever. Why is it objectionable for an author to take into account readers' different levels of knowledge? |
|
Advert | |
|
08-16-2018, 11:36 PM | #33 |
Snoozing in the sun
Posts: 10,135
Karma: 115423645
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Device: iPad Mini, Kobo Touch
|
Perhaps it's more a matter of style, and the way in which Bacon piles one fact on top of another, on top of another. For me, it's unnecessary padding, and these were just a couple of examples of that. (The whole detailed examination of Joseph Barss's life and times was the gigantic example of Bacon's padding.)
But if it works for you, and is of interest, that's fine. It would be a dull world if we all liked the same things and thought the same way! |
08-17-2018, 01:05 AM | #34 |
Snoozing in the sun
Posts: 10,135
Karma: 115423645
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Device: iPad Mini, Kobo Touch
|
I found this website, which may be of interest. It includes old photographs following the explosion, and five accounts of individual experiences being read out.
https://novascotia.ca/archives/remembrance/default.asp |
08-17-2018, 03:33 AM | #35 |
cacoethes scribendi
Posts: 5,809
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
|
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. Last edited by gmw; 08-17-2018 at 03:49 AM. |
Advert | |
|
08-17-2018, 08:09 AM | #36 |
Snoozing in the sun
Posts: 10,135
Karma: 115423645
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Device: iPad Mini, Kobo Touch
|
I suspect that Halifax is a "forgotten story" in the US, or at least in parts of it, but is in no way forgotten in Canada. Perhaps another example of the book being US-centric.
I had certainly never heard of the explosion, but we are on the other side of the world. (I was pleased to see that Australia sent aid, as did so many other countries.) |
08-17-2018, 10:19 AM | #37 |
cacoethes scribendi
Posts: 5,809
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
|
I think "forgotten story" is quite appropriate, it just struck me as an odd juxtaposition: "forgotten story" title over a brief description of people remembering it every year. (This is just one of several things about this book that make me think it could have done with a much better editor - or the author paying more attention to their editor, as the case may be.)
I had heard of the disaster before, most recently through reading the John Irving's Until I find You; Irving provides quite a good summary of the event considering the relatively small part of the book that talks of it. |
08-17-2018, 08:01 PM | #38 | |||||||
Wizard
Posts: 2,629
Karma: 73864785
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: PDXish
Device: Kindle Voyage, various Android devices
|
I've been out of town for a few days and didn't have a chance to chime in here (although I have been following along.)
Overall, I enjoyed this more than I enjoyed The Radium Girls. Not because the topic is more interesting or the writing is much better (I would call it a wash) but because it didn't feel completely biased like TRG did. I gave this book 4 stars. It was engaging, informative, and (seemingly) well researched. And then I read this thread....after reading an learning more here I have to drop my rating a couple stars. My take on "fault" is that the explosion is almost entirely the fault of the Imo -they were on the wrong side of the channel, going too fast, and not following accepted procedures (not moving over when the Mont-Blanc responded that no they wouldn't switch sides). I don't fault the MB for fleeing and not putting up a red flag even though it would have normally been required and would have been easy to do. They were specifically told not to earlier due to the war and the pilot should have told them to do that if it was required for Halifax at the time. I wish we knew whether or not the pilot on the Imo told the captain to yield and move over. That seems like the main intentional rather than accidental cause for the incident. The rest of it was a series of unfortunate events (both trying to swerve at the same time, etc.) but the Imo plowing forward on the wrong side of the channel and then refusing to correct themselves was deliberate. I have a hard time blaming the crew of the Mont-Blanc for fleeing. Given the nature of the explosives the fact that there was ~15 minutes before the explosion to flee was surprising. It was obvious they didn't think that would happen. Yes, looking back they should have taken more time to warn off everyone else but even if they knew they had 10+ minutes, could they really have saved much? Some of the boats would have been able to get away (although the wave might have gotten them anyway) but could the neighborhoods on both sides of the harbor have been warned and evacuated in time? The situation really called for an in-depth what if... Rather than re-hash much of what has already been said, I will just comment on some of the other things that have already been said. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
08-17-2018, 09:05 PM | #39 |
Snoozing in the sun
Posts: 10,135
Karma: 115423645
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Device: iPad Mini, Kobo Touch
|
One of the (many) things that troubled me about the book was its sub-title: "A World War One Story of Treachery, Tragedy and Extraordinary Heroism".
Most of that is right ... but where is the treachery? That's a pretty strong word to use without good cause. While people initially and understandably thought that Germans might have been to blame, Bacon doesn't pursue this, so unless he thinks the members of the crew of the Mont Blanc were displaying treachery (which they were not, given that it means a deliberate act of betrayal or sabotage), such a dramatic word is completely inappropriate. It's one of the reasons I referred earlier to the book as tabloid journalism. Janet Kitz however does give some interesting information which suggests at least a possibility of a deliberate act of sabotage by the helmsman of the Imo, even involving the murder of the captain and the pilot in order to carry this out. However, it was never properly investigated, and one question would have to be how the very limited knowledge of the Mont Blanc's cargo could have been known, unless that knowledge was relayed from New York. |
08-18-2018, 08:16 AM | #40 | |
o saeclum infacetum
Posts: 20,139
Karma: 222000000
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New England
Device: H2O, Aura One, PW5
|
Quote:
|
|
08-18-2018, 09:25 AM | #41 | |
o saeclum infacetum
Posts: 20,139
Karma: 222000000
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New England
Device: H2O, Aura One, PW5
|
Quote:
In fact, since the end of the War of 1812, the US had abandoned the incursion into Canada as a policy objective (among other issues, it wasn't working out). It's worth noting that during the War of 1812 Canada was British and Britain was the enemy, for good reasons such as the suppression of US trade and the impressment of its nationals on the high seas. In 1871, the US and the UK were signatories to the Treaty of Washington, to clear up hanging issues related to the US Civil War and including matters related to Canada (mostly swapping the right of the US to navigate on the St. Lawrence for a similar right for Canada on Lake Michigan). But the point is that Canada had been self-governing since 1867 although Britain continued to control Canada's foreign relations and by signing the treaty, the US in effect acknowledged Canadian sovereignty. Bacon took some bombast on the part of a few individuals, such as the occasional posturing speech in Congress that resulted in no votes or legislation and inflated that into serious US aims on Canada to serve his narrative about two countries at loggerheads. It was no worse and no different from a Canadian campaigning on the basis of a perceived US threat, even if one didn't exist (and I'm taking Bacon's claims into account here, even though I don't trust him). In fact, the two countries rubbed along. Issues? Most certainly. Did many Canadians resent US neutrality in the Great War? Of course. But these were not two countries which were enemies under the skin. However, the story Bacon wants to sell is how the explosion served to transform two countries, one with aggressive aims and the other a resentful and fearful object, into friends. At best, he grossly overstates this. I see it as exploitative, again, of a tragedy and his way of making the story about the US in order to sell to the US market. But it's erroneous history, where he inflates passing emotions and posturing into policy. The last serious American designs on the British territory to its direct north dated a century earlier than Bacon claims and the US never planned an annexation of Canada. |
|
08-18-2018, 09:38 AM | #42 |
cacoethes scribendi
Posts: 5,809
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
|
Well, I finished.
The central part of the book, covering the event and its immediate aftermath, contained rather more than its fair share of newspaper headlines masquerading as narrative text. Hmm... I came close it myself, just there . (I'm wondering if this is the source of issybird's accusation of poor writing?) There were quite a few places where I think a lack of good editorial influence is apparent, not to mention proof-readers/fact-checkers. I already mentioned the picric acid description, a few other examples include: Spoiler:
But the complaints aside, there were some good things in this work. The book makes a number of interesting side-references to aspects of World War I: the events of the first Christmas, the life, poetry and death of Wilfred Owen, and more. If you can stand the heartbreak, for more detail I recommend the 1996 mini-series narrated by Judy Dench, called 1914-1918. I thought this apt: "The Great War had already spanned a good portion of the children’s young lives, so it had been normalized, something they lived with every day." I thought this was an interesting observation: "This was the era that commercialized Christmas, after all, by purchasing teddy bears, Lincoln Logs, and Erector Sets, all available in stacks at a new institution called the department store—Eaton’s in Canada, and Sears, Roebuck in the United States." That "Looting was virtually non-existent" seems incredible, and leaves me wondering how much was due to the influence of the war. Or was it the sheer size of the devastation? I liked this line: "met extraordinary circumstances with basic goodness. During these trying days, that was heroic enough." I thought this deserved highlighting: "The objective pursuit of truth was impeded by the fact that Imo’s captain, Haakon From, and Harbour Pilot William Hayes had both been killed [...]" This single fact makes the legal arguments later rather open to conjecture: might there have been some reason for the behaviour of the Imo? (I see Bookpossum's recent post makes reference to this idea, so I'm obviously not the only one having such thoughts.) This little tid-bit was interesting to discover: "If the mother had been debilitated or killed while the father was off at war, family or friends often took their children, with a catch: they had to be of the same religion." And this struck me as odd: "A year after the Richmond reunion, on June 9, 1985, they [...] inserted a time capsule in the tower, to be opened on December 6, 2017, the hundredth anniversary of the explosion." Who creates a time-capsule for just 32 years? And the conclusion harks back to the opening, where it speaks of the Christmas trees for Boston and "Halifax resurrected the tradition". Say what? Once does not a tradition make! In the acknowledgements we see: "All of these authors and experts agreed to meet with me on my trips to their city, giving generously of their time and knowledge during our long conversations." This includes reference Janet Kitz (mistakenly spelled as "Katz" in this section). This gives me some hope that, however much it may appear to be excess copying/reference to Kitz's work, it has still found acceptance by Kitz - and if true, that's good enough. |
08-18-2018, 10:32 AM | #43 | |
cacoethes scribendi
Posts: 5,809
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
|
Quote:
I'm happy to buy a large part your explanation - particularly that Bacon overstates the situation rather than makes it up - but his reasoning is not all based on bombast by politicians. There are both immediate and historical reasons for some level of - let's call it - disagreement between the two countries at the time, which is why the situation as Bacon presents it does not seem unreasonable. Sure, things may not have been as a strong as Bacon would have us believe, but his presentation is not totally without substance. I am more curious about your strength of feeling with this exploitation of history when you seemed much less offended (than I was anyway) with Kate Moore's exploitation of readers' emotions in The Radium Girls, suggesting (if I remember correctly) it was suitable for popular historical fiction. Doesn't the same excuse apply here? I might also ask myself the same question in reverse: why do I not find this book as offensive as I found The Radium Girls? And I've been trying to figure that out. It may be that Bacon has simply been cleverer in his deceptions, you need to read outside his book to discover where he has been exaggerating or misrepresenting, whereas Moore was more upfront, with most(?) of her manipulations obvious in the text: upfront annoying rather than belatedly annoying. ... Or it may be that I think Bacon's misrepresentations are incidental, they don't really affect the history being presented (the Christmas tree thing is an emotional hook but has nothing to do with history - which is, of course, the problem; and the political situation between America and Canada is insignificant against the backdrop of the Great War and Halifax's role in that.) Whereas Moore annoyed me because her representation threatened to distort and obscure the history she should have been trying to illuminate. |
|
08-18-2018, 11:03 AM | #44 | |||
cacoethes scribendi
Posts: 5,809
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
|
Quote:
Quote:
20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Then there's the possibility that something else was happening on Imo that we never got to learn about - see Bookpossum's post. Quote:
I'm not making any bets on whether I'd have behaved any better in their position, I'm just saying what seems apparent from the comfort and safety of my desk a hundred years on. |
|||
08-18-2018, 12:59 PM | #45 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,342
Karma: 52398889
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
I liked the book, despite the flaws. I had never heard of the Halifax explosion before, so all the information was new to me. If there were mistakes, I didn't focus on them (I wouldn't have noticed them if not for reading the comments here), and while they may be regrettable and induce angst in historians and experts, for me they ultimately didn't detract from the main story of a disaster and its aftermath.
I didn't care about the relatively short shrift given to legal proceedings--it was a human error accident, and I don't know that there's a great lesson to be learned from the specifics of what happened in the harbor, or that's there's something that could have prevented it. That's where it differs greatly from Radium Girls, where accountability mattered, where the lessons learned could make future workers safer in the workplace. It was disappointing to learn that the Christmas trees weren't sent every year since the disaster, as implied in the opening. But mostly I thought it was an interesting and uplifting story of people coming together to deal with tragedy. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MobileRead August 2017 Discussion: Your Turn, Mr. Moto by John P. Marquand (spoilers) | WT Sharpe | Book Clubs | 27 | 08-29-2017 12:44 PM |
Romance Craik, Dinah Maria: John Halifax, Gentleman. v1. 4 Sep 2013 | crutledge | Kindle Books | 0 | 09-04-2013 08:07 AM |
Romance Craik, Dinah Maria: John Halifax, Gentleman. v1. 4 Sep 2013 | crutledge | ePub Books | 0 | 09-04-2013 08:06 AM |
Romance Craik, Dinah Maria: John Halifax, Gentleman. v1. 4 Sep 2013 | crutledge | BBeB/LRF Books | 0 | 09-04-2013 08:04 AM |
Philosophy James, William: Great Men, Great Thoughts, and the Environment, v1, 4 August 2009 | Patricia | Kindle Books | 0 | 08-03-2009 08:48 PM |