| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
16 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Disaster! is an Appropriate Title,
By Mark Skubik (Santa Clara, California) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Disaster! The Great San Francisco Earthquake and Fire of 1906 (Hardcover)
The title says it all. Kurzman is a sensation story writer. While the book itself may be a good read in the sense of historical fiction, I would not count on it to provide any insight.On the positive, his bibliography is pretty good, and it may be that his popular press editors dumbed down the text in order to make it more accessable to the general public. BUT the section on the bubonic plague has enough problems (confusing U. S. Secretary of the Treasury Lyman Gage with California Governor Henry T.Gage, for example) to weed it out as a reliable secondary source. Kurzman claims that the first plague outbreak was caused by rats transported by ships from China carrying Chinese sex slaves, that San Francisco mayor Eugene Schmitz had a stake in the slave trade, and that he covered up the second outbreak of bubonic plague to protect his business interests. Kurzman goes on to claim that the second outbreak was brought on by infected rats fleeing from Chinatown into the rest of the city. This is all a little too speculative and sensational for my taste. Since there is no evidence, either in his footnotes, nor in the literature I know of, which would back up either allegation, I'm afraid that I cannot endorse his assertions. That being the case, it casts the rest of the book in the same weak light. There isn't a lot of new ground covered in this book. People interested in this period of San Francisco history would be better served by reading from Kurzman's bibliography rather than relying on Kurzman to filter their history. On the San Francisco graft trials, no better book exists than Franklin Hichborn's "The System." For a revisionist view of the earthquake and fire, try "Denial of Disaster" by Gladys Hansen. mms, Grad. Student, Department of History, San Jose State University
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Informative but not Compelling,
By
This review is from: Disaster! The Great San Francisco Earthquake and Fire of 1906 (Hardcover)
"Disaster" was a disappointment for me, mainly because I'd greatly enjoyed two of author Dan Krzman's previous books, "Fatal Voyage," and "Left to Die," about the U.S.S. Indianapolis and U.S.S. Juneau disasters, respectively. Those books, in addition to being informative history, tell great stories. Alas, "Disatser" makes a similar attempt in the storytelling department but fails. The book contains plenty of facts and first hand accounts of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire, but it is strangely disjointed. There are so many stories of numerous survivors interwoven together that individually they are hard to follow. And since the book checks in at a fairly brief 256 pages of text, each snippet of each story usually gets only a couple of paragraphs before moving on. Together, the stories blend into a rather shapeless mass that all start to sound alike. Kurzman would have been better served to tell his story from the larger perspective and using individual stories where they fit in. This approach served David McCullough extremely well in his excellnt "The Johnstown Flood," which serves as the ideal model for this type of book.Overall, if you are interested in the subject matter or are a disaster buff, this book should be worthwhile with the above caveats. If you are a casual reader, you may want to consider taking a pass on this one.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A quick and easy picture of the quake and fire...,
By
This review is from: Disaster! The Great San Francisco Earthquake and Fire of 1906 (Hardcover)
Disaster seems to want to be a lively, fiction-style approach to the events, but suffers from a lack of depth and from the absence of any usable central characters. So we don't quite get a point of view strong enough to paint a compelling subjective experience, nor enough depth and detail to create a strong objective study. Instead we land somewhere in between. Not a bad book, though some of the historic conclusions seem open to debate. It does have some nice little anecdotes, and can be read cover to cover in a light afternoon, so this might make a good overview or starting point for someone approaching the subject. Young readers would also find this handy. If you want to see this type of historical writing done well, pick up David McCullough's book about the Johnstown Flood.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|