Customer Reviews

1906: A Novel

5 star:		(76)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

I am probably in a small minority of people who knew much of this story before I read it. I am 71 years old and my mother, her parents and many of their friends survived the horrible 1906 earthquake and fires. Growing up, I heard countless stories about what happened. Everyone who survived was angry that the death toll was so low, 500 people, when it was many times that number. My grandmother collected newspaper articles that disputed the death toll and many other lies that city officials told. My grandparents told of people being driven out of their homes at bayonet point when the fire was still a long way away and told they could take nothing of their possessions with them. Every survivor told tales of the military and national guard breaking into bars and liquor stores, then shooting anyone they thought might be looting. What surprised and delighted me about this book was not just the fact that the writer corrected the falsehoods, but that he took the time to tell us what life was like in one of the most beautiful and colorful cities America has ever seen. This was like a journey through my family history. He told how everyone, even the poorest, dressed well whenever they were in public. I could hear the cable cars clanging up and down the hills, the horses hooves clomping on the streets, see into the alleys of Chinatown where they were still selling poor little girls like cattle. I loved his descriptions of the mansions on Nob Hill and the dregs of the Barbary Coast, and my grandmother, were she still alive, would have relished the Caruso sections, as she had tickets to attend one of the perfromances, one that she saved up for for weeks but missed because the opera house was burned down. I think anyone would love this book, whether or not they have ever been to San Francisco. I have asked myself for many years why somone has not told this story. I am from the generation that was rasied on books, not television. This is one I am going to treasure. I heard the author speak and saw a documentary film he presented at a library last week. He is as passionate and knowledgeable about the subject in person. The images of the city and the disaster brought back a flood of emotions, as did the book. I just thought it was all wonderful.

This is an absorbing novel that is commendable in some important respects, especially the fact that Dalessandro did some homework regarding many of the particulars of the actual story surrounding the 1906 quake and its aftermath. Overall, however, it's basically a made-for-Hollywood treatment of the earthquake that exudes sensationalism and is uneven in its historical accuracy.

Dalessandro includes much of the material unearthed (so to speak) by Gladys Hansen and other researchers regarding what actually happened on April 18, 1906. He reveals the actual casualty levels (several thousand deaths, at least), makes abundantly clear the stupidity of General Frederick Funston's overuse of dynamite as a means for creating a fire break, and spotlights the overt corruption that helped create the institutional context for a disaster that turned out much worse than it might have had the city been better prepared.

The author is at his best when he slips into his narrative this or that little historical anecdote or snippet about "old San Francisco." It's with regard to the minutiae of the pre-earthquake city, its politics and its cultural distinctiveness that the book clearly shows considerable research and preparation.

However, it's pretty clear that geology is not Dalessandro's forte, and the book includes a number of painful inaccuracies that will cause anyone familiar with the science of seismology to wince. He conveys his geological information and insight through the inclusion of a character named Jeremy Darling, an assistant professor of geology at UC Berkeley. On the train heading west, Darling explains to buxon Kansas runaway Kaitlin Staley that seismology studies "the subterranean movements of the earth's giant plates." Problem is, no one in that field would have explained earthquakes in terms of "plates" in 1906, as plate tectonic theory was not yet even a twinkle in any geologist's eye.

Later in the book, Professor Darling notices ominious precursors to a possible earthquake in the form of apparent "creep" along the San Andreas Fault. He explains to protagonist and narrator Annalisa Passareli that such highly visible creep indicates that something "big" is about to happen, perhaps to the north (i.e., in San Francisco). However, in reality, fault creep has no particular predictive value and, in fact, geologists are generally more concerned about "locked" sections of a fault where no apparent movement at all is occurring.

Finally, Dalessandro includes a strange passage in which a section of railroad being built up the Peninsula through the San Mateo County salt marshes is seen to have been twisted in an s-shape, indicating yet more dramatically the fault movement that foreshadows a possible huge break. However, if there were such twisting of railroad tracks, it would have to occur directly across the fault itself, in response to the strike-slip movement of the plates. The San Mateo marshes lie well to the east of the San Andreas Fault and west of the Hayward Fault, so what possible geological mechanism would cause them to twist into an s-shape?

I suppose only geological nitpickers will care about these kinds of inaccuracies, but it reveals a level of inattention to detail in the preparation of the book that I find annoying.

As for the presentation, Dalessandro includes some admirably colorful descriptive language and he keeps the story moving along in lively fashion, but he creates confusion by switching, often clumsily, back and forth between third person and first person narrative (the "I" being Annalise Passarelli). At the end of the book he explains that this was, apparently, the style used by the famous reporter Nellie Bly, This merely shows, however, that the mistakes of one writer can all too easily become an excuse for the mistakes of another.

As for the story itself, well, there are gunfights and fist fights and fallen women and Shanghai-ers and Enrico Caruso, and lots of descriptions of broken buildings, injured people, and the ever-spreading Great Fire. And the book's good guys are extremely good and the bad guys are REALLY bad. Hey, the hero and the heroine fall in love and get married! Indeed, there is no lack of action, and let's face it, the 1906 quake makes a terrific vehicle for a story.

If this is the kind of story you enjoy, this book is for you. Overall, I confess that despite its flaws I enjoyed it. It'll make a terrific movie (made for TV, probably), and I definitely won't miss it.

No writer, unless delusional, expects unanimous praise. But when you question someone's scholarship, perhaps some research of one's own is in order. I wrote 1906 partially to help refute three glaring lies. First, that the death toll was only 478, when it is easily over 4,000. Secondly that Mayor Eugene Schmitz and General Frederick Funston were the "heros" of the disaster, when their main achievments were shooting scores of innocent people as suspected looters and using dynamite to spread the conflagration that consumed 29,000 buildings. The only commentary that bothers me is that of Douglas A. Greeberg, who states that my geological "inaccuracies" - voiced by my fictional Berkely professor Jeremy Darling - cause knowledgable people to "wince" as the theory of plate tectonics was not a "twinkle in the eye" of geologists for another fifty years. Mr. Greenberg has perpetraded the broad inacurracy - my third goal in refuting - that geological science was non-existent and San Francisco was oblivious to its danger. That is woefully incorrect. According to UC San Diego professor Naomi Orestes, in her 1999 book Rejection of Continental Drift (Introduction, Page 3) ... "Imagine my surpise - and dismay - to discover in England that the radically new idea of plate tectonics had been proposed more than a half century before (in his 1912 book) by German geophysicist, Alfred Wegner...Wegner's book, The Origin of Continents and Oceans...contains many of the essential features of plate tectonic theory." And Edward S. Holden, Director of the Lick Observatory, wrote in 1898 that earthquakes were casued by "faulting in the underground strata." In 1905, a San Francisco newspaper reported that "College professors call them geotectonic" (Fradkin: pg. 25, The Great Earthquake and Firestorm of 1906). As for fictional professor Darling's belief that something "big" was imminent, between 1837 and 1906, San Francisco recorded 16 earthquakes of nearly 6.0 or greater, including a 5.9 in 1902, two 6.1's in 1903, two more in 1904. Mr Greenberg argues that when Professor Darling observes the 'creep' of a fence that straddles the San Andreas Fault, "fault creep has no particular predictive value and, in fact, geologists are generally more concerned about "locked" sections of a fault where no apparent movement at all is occurring." Its obvious that Mr. Greenberg, and not this author, failed his geology studies. Although the San Andreas fault is "locked" at its edges, houses and fences on opposites sides are moving past each other an average of 1.5 inches a year, caused by the horrific bending and buckling of land adjacent to the locked fault. This causes earthquakes when the opposing plates can no longer take the stress and rebound past each other. In 1906, the average 'rebound' was 13-15 feet. Bad news: the North American and Pacific Plates have slipped 160 inches since 1906: we are now at a similar level of stress. This is a core factor in the "predictive" statements of the USGS for an imminent reoccurence. As for Mr. Greenberg's contention that my character Hunter Fallon could not attribute the 'S' curve in a rail road track to the San Andreas Fault, there is a simple solution: my character got that one wrong. I hate historical epics that use hind sight to get everything correct: my characters used the science of the day. What Hunter observed was equally incipient: the instability of land fill. But there is one last, off-handed insult, cast by Mr. Greenberg at the journalist Nellie Bly, whose style is emulated by my narrator, Anna Lisa Passarelli when she put herself into her stories, switching from third to first person narrative. Mr. Greenberg states..."This merely shows, however, that the mistakes of one writer can all too easily become an excuse for the mistakes of another." Nellie Bly is one of the most influential journalists in American history: she spent 10 days as an inmate in a New York asylum to expose the abuse of the mentally ill, posed as a pregnant runaway to break up a baby peddling ring, and then a forced prostitution ring involving New York police officers. In 1890, she traveled around the world, alone, in less than 80 days, electrifying the nation. She became the first female war correspondent, reporting the horrors of The Great War. Her style of 'first person' jorunalism was emulated by Jack London in "John Barleycorn" and became a staple of writers like Hunter S. Thompson. To call her life and career a "mistake" is reckless and inexcusable. I expect all writers to do their homework: I expect their critics to do the same. James Dalessando, San Francisco

I'm a professional historian as well as a writer, and believe me, I'm hard to impress when it comes to historical novels. But this one is a knockout! It's been thoroughly researched, and Dalessandro has done what only the most successful historical novelists know how to do: he has immersed himself in the period, and takes the reader with him to the San Francisco of April 1906 and the Great Earthquake and fire. An accomplished screenwriter, he brings his characters to life, and grips you with superb drama and suspense.
We witness the heroism of some and the shoddiness, corruption and monumental stupidity of the city's establishment. Not the least of the author's achievements, and one of the charms of the novel, is to have the narrator, Annalisa, write and speak in the authentic style and tone of the period. This book is a winner, from the first page to the end. Bravo!

I live in the midwest and travel to San Francisco on business periodically, where I discovered James Dalessandro's first novel, Bohemian Heart several years ago. It was one of the most intelligent, original, page-turning mysteries I had ever read. I bought a copy of 1906 on Union Square last week and read it on the airplane home, and was the last one off the airplane because I did not want to close the book. He outdid himself this time, something I did not expect. This is much more than a story about the great San Francisco earthquake and fire, though the long section on the earthquake, the chaos and heroism and human disaster is riveting. This is a poem to the city of San Francisco that was wiped off the earth: it is a romance, a cry of outrage, a political tome, a journey through what must have been the most fascinating and complex city in America at the turn of the century. What I loved about both of his novels was how lean and taut they are, how he never overwrites and never seems to waste words, and yet 1906 is filled with colorful details, complex plots and subplots, and some of the most fascinating and orginal characters in fiction. I laughed out loud, re-read several chapters as soon as I was done with them, and must have cried three or four times while reading the book, especially at the end. My best friend is now reading it and we are already arguing over who our favorite character is, what the best lines are, and what is the most shocking revelations about the disaster. I just hope Mr. Dalessandro does not wait ten years to write another San Francisco story. It is the best book I have read in a very long time.

Many of the Amazon "reviews" of this book either must be the author himself, or some of his cronies. I find it impossible that all of these people agree this a 5-star book. Also notice how many sound suspiciously like advertisements...a dead giveaway!!

Now let me give you an impartial review. This is a story with great potential that suffers from poor writing and and over-ambitious plot. First of all, it could have used better editing. Allesandro seems to find a word he likes and keeps repeating it frequently (ie. the word 'flirtatious' three times in less than two pages). The author is a man who choses to write the book as if he were the first person woman...which does not really succeed. Even though our heroine narrator is female, some of her personality and actions are decidedly unfemale: lacking in the emotion a woman would really feel.

Then there is the plot. In the first 1/4 of the book we are introduced to what seems like 60 different characters. Each chapter brings a whole new story line with way too many character descriptions...especially when the character ends up playing a minor (if any) role in the story. I found myself turning back several pages to remind myself who each character was, who they were related to, etc. which made for very frustrating reading. I could also not help but think this was a "written for a movie" book. You can almost smell the author's desperation to make this into a screenplay. There are certainly some good action moments throughout the book, but I ended up feeling more annoyed than entertained by the time I finished the book.

Why this book is a very intersting I do have to say that some of the book dose seem a bit rushed, espeically as you reach the end. Don't get me wrong it dose a fine job of sheading light on a much romatisized period in the city's history. The seedy underbelly of San Fransisco is dramitized in the novel to great effect. The opium dens, corrupt city officials and the Barbery Coast are just some of the sights and sounds of the City by the Bay. There were some historical mistakes in this novel. One of the big one form a historical point of veiw is the cameo apperance of Emperor Norton I. He shepards Kathlin out of harms way in the middle of the book. There's only one problem. Norton died in 1880. He would have been dead for over 26 years at the time of the story. But all in all a very good read.

James Dalessandro is a superb storyteller. And that is the highest praise I can imagine for any novelist.
In this novel, Dalessandro takes readers on an action-packed ride through a fictional story based on the facts of what occurred around the time of the 1906 earthquake and fire disaster in San Francisco. He uses rich, historical detail to put the reader in the scene. As a native San Franciscan, I enjoyed recognizing names and places that reminded me of my personal history that is interlaced with my hometown's past.
As a former newspaper reporter, I have heard many fiction writers talk about the technique they call "don't tell, show" in writing. Dalessandro does this. His screenwriting talents create a movie in the reader's imagination. He writes in a compelling style that constantly moves his story along.
I chose 1906 for my book club. All of the members agreed that once we started reading, each of us had a difficult time stopping for mundane tasks, such as working or sleeping. I recommend this book to everyone who loves a good story, well told.

Whoa people! Have we forgotten what entertainment is? Do you want to learn about earthquakes and how different generations understood them? Look it up in your local library. Do you want pure historical accuracy about the events of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake? Again, look it up in the library. Now I may be biased because I live in the North Bay, but I found it exciting to read a FICTION based in San Francisco. The BACKDROP of the 1906 'Quake made it exciting. Some of the comments in other's reviews seem to support the mistaken belief that everything you see in a movie "based on a true story" is, in fact, accurate. This is a fiction, entertainment.

With that out of the way, I found Mr. Dalessandro's book to be well written. Hollywood? Well, it IS entertaining. To address two particular points of criticism, I found the first/third person style of writing a good exercise of my attention. And for the "switching back and forth" of action, I found the complexity of events easier to follow than a lot of movies. This can only be attributed to Mr. Dalessandro's prowess as a writer.

Both the character development AND the long list of characters add to the excitement of everything leading up to when "it hit". The book has everything today's audience seems to demand in entertainment - drama, violence, romance, etc. The one thing I personally appreciate is the lack of any sex between the two main characters - this would have made it too cheesy. But, as it was written, the romance was believable and not at the forefront of the story.

If you approach this book for what it is - entertainment - you will not be disappointed. And if you do not know a whole lot about the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, it just might, as it did me, spur and interest in learning more about it.

It seems like Dalessandro has set his sights high for Hollywood which is what this novel resembles. Its less a historical drama, and more a B-level action movie with the usual romance/adventure sub-plots. This is certainly not a book where one can learn about facts and get a feel for the happenings of 1906 San Francisco. The earthquake and the events surrounding is more or less a plot device that adds to the suspense.

How so? In order to make things more exciting, readable, and eventually watchable, he takes too many liberties and exagerations with actual historical events and people and twists and bends them. Shanghai Kelly, and a character based on the real-life local celebrity Emperor Norton appear in the book, even though they were long dead long before 1906. Real life political boss and puppeteer at the time, Abe Ruef is "Adam Rolf" in this novel and is elevated to a frothing-at-the-mouth supervillan complete with henchmen, monologuing, and plans for domination. Even opera tenor Enrico Caruso, who left the city right away after the quake, stick around and does some things. As explained by a previous reviewer, there is the usual funny science as always seen in natural disaster flicks. Also as mentioned in a previous review, the narrator and love interest, Annalisa (who is also an exaggeration of a historical figure) seems to have difficulty between first and third person. And in my view, seems to be a bit too contemporary and modern for a woman living in 1906. Prominent figures at the time such as Spreckels, Phelan, the Navy, and even firefighters are reduced to minor roles in the novel. Perhaps because they wont make good stand ins.

I don't have a problem too much with fiction novels/movies based on actual events. James Cameron's Titanic is a perfect example of how such exagerations and extremes are not necessary to craft such a movie that is relatively historically accurate. Take away the earthquake, and a story like this could may as well happen in Boston or Miami in 2006 which is the biggest problem I had with this story.

For a much better interpetation of the 1906 Earthquake that's factually accurate and informative as well as fascinating and captivating to read without resorting to such theatrics and tired plot devices, read Dennis Smith's "San Francisco is Burning". If you are looking for a mindless yet entertaining (to an extent) romp at the movies, read this novel.