toyed with the idea of fictionalizing minor parts of the story- conversations, personal thoughts, day to day routines- to make it more readable, but risked diminishing the value of whatever facts I was able to determine. ..."
The author decided to stick to the facts, and in doing so, wrote a gripping adventure at sea that is also a mystery. We don’t know what happened to the Andrea Gail or other victims of the "Halloween Gale" of October 1991. Rather than speculate, he interviewed survivors of similar storms and shipwrecks. It might have taken more work but it made for "edge of the seat" reading. One passage in particular recounts what it is like to drown, written by a survivor of a shipwreck.
I haven't seen the movie but I intend to watch it now that I read the book. ( )

I’m very impressed with the amount of research that went into The Perfect Storm, and with Junger’s ability to arrange it all in a manner that was both easy to follow and didn’t slog the reader down in too much technical data. The individuals’ stories, such as those of the men lost aboard the Andrea Gail, added a lot to the story. My only real complaint involves a personal preference - I could have done without the ‘biological responses to drowning’ section as I felt it to be in poor taste. ( )

I tried. I tried so hard but I just can't get into this book at all.

Here's what I wrote in 2008 about this read: "Highly memorable, the fated Andrea Gail, lost a sea in the perfect storm, in 1991. Also made into a movie, but did not see." ( )

Things I like:

Setting the story: I guess everyone has a good idea of where this 'story' is going, but rather than jumping straight into the action, he spends time building out the context in which the story takes place. I like this.

Scientific asides: The author manages to make subjects such as oceanography, weather patterns and deep sea fishing really interesting. I found some of the descriptions

Things that could be improved: POV: who's talking, I can't tell. I appreciate this is nonfiction, but I find this confusing. I'd prefer, if it was an attributed account. Quite often the perspective jumps between the narrator and witnesses; often in way that was jarring and confusing.

Focus of the story, I think the story maybe focused a little too much on the Andrea Gale. I think if the story had been a bit more balanced I would have enjoyed it more. For instance in the last 10 pages or so of the book he mentions another ship that lost all of its crew in a second storm (33 crew all lost) this gets only a passing glance while the Andrea Gales crew takes up half the story

Notes:

"Reminds me a bit of Moby Dick in the way it seems to oscilate between the main story action (the crew of the Andrea Gale) and background information (in Moby Dick it was about whales, in this one it's about fishing industry in Gloucester)."

Overall: A good read that makes the nonfiction content really jump off the page. I think for me the stand out feature was probably description of scientific principals.
( )