This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1techeditor
BIG MIRACLE by Tom Rose is the nonfiction story of a nonevent (Rose’s word) in 1988 that became so huge it captured the attention of the world and just about preempted a presidential election in the United States. In Barrow, Alaska, “the tip of the world,” three whales were trapped beneath ice and couldn’t migrate south to warmer waters as they did every year at that time. They would die when a hole in the ice froze over and they were unable to breathe.
This was a nonevent, says Rose, because it was not uncommon; whales became trapped under ice and died every year for thousands of years. This was wildlife. But it still became an event because the media made it an event.
Rose initially makes the mistake of subjecting readers, who probably expect the story of the whale rescue, to many long descriptions of whaling and the whaling industry and many long paragraphs of historical detail about whaling. While that interests some of us, it isn’t the animal story readers expect. Although Rose could argue that these details are necessary to understanding the story of the three trapped whales, I still insist that he overdid it. He could and should have stated simply that a long-time whaler in Barrow, Alaska discovered, just by chance, three whales trapped under the ice.
Rose is a successful journalist. But he wrote this book like he didn’t study journalism in college. Keep it brief, simple.
Although Rose continues with stories that were less dull, stories of life at the top of the world and how the media, the rescuers, and the players in the rescue did their jobs there, BIG MIRACLE is still easy to put down. Background information about most participants in the rescue, and even some of the reporters, added context to the story, but much of the historical detail was unnecessary. And so was the repetition. Sometimes I wanted to scream, too much information, Tom!
So, if you think this book is strictly about three trapped whales and the efforts to save them, think again. Rose also has a valid point to make: real news stories were ignored in favor of this nonevent. Rose was one of those reporters.
This was a nonevent, says Rose, because it was not uncommon; whales became trapped under ice and died every year for thousands of years. This was wildlife. But it still became an event because the media made it an event.
Rose initially makes the mistake of subjecting readers, who probably expect the story of the whale rescue, to many long descriptions of whaling and the whaling industry and many long paragraphs of historical detail about whaling. While that interests some of us, it isn’t the animal story readers expect. Although Rose could argue that these details are necessary to understanding the story of the three trapped whales, I still insist that he overdid it. He could and should have stated simply that a long-time whaler in Barrow, Alaska discovered, just by chance, three whales trapped under the ice.
Rose is a successful journalist. But he wrote this book like he didn’t study journalism in college. Keep it brief, simple.
Although Rose continues with stories that were less dull, stories of life at the top of the world and how the media, the rescuers, and the players in the rescue did their jobs there, BIG MIRACLE is still easy to put down. Background information about most participants in the rescue, and even some of the reporters, added context to the story, but much of the historical detail was unnecessary. And so was the repetition. Sometimes I wanted to scream, too much information, Tom!
So, if you think this book is strictly about three trapped whales and the efforts to save them, think again. Rose also has a valid point to make: real news stories were ignored in favor of this nonevent. Rose was one of those reporters.
2TooBusyReading
Great information about the book, techeditor. The book initially caught my eye, but I decided it wasn't one that I would enjoy, and your comments make me think I made the right decision.
3techeditor
I always feel bad if I write an unfavorable book review. But I resent book reviews that aren't honest because I depend on them.
4TooBusyReading
I know what you mean. It's easy to write a snarky negative review but much more difficult to write one that lets people know exactly why you didn't like it without sounding snarky.
On another site, which shall remain unnamed, people often vote "not helpful" for thoughtful, well-written reviews that don't agree with their own opinions. Funny in a way, but also sad that those people cannot respect another's opinion when it doesn't agree with their own.
On another site, which shall remain unnamed, people often vote "not helpful" for thoughtful, well-written reviews that don't agree with their own opinions. Funny in a way, but also sad that those people cannot respect another's opinion when it doesn't agree with their own.
