As I've been feeling like I need an outlet lately, I've decided to do something with this blog...at least until I get back into the writing swing of things.

For now, I'm going to start by posting some old book reviews. I love books...I love reading. But I don't necessarily like all the books I read. :)

The first book review (I read this last year, I think) - Steven Johnson's The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic and How It Changed Science, Cities and the Modern World.

Johnson presents an intriguing story of medical investigation in mid-nineteenth century London. Reading about a vicious cholera epidemic, centered in a run-down neighborhood of Soho, makes the reader glad that he/she lives in a time when access to clean water is a given. Imagine seeing your neighbors succumb, sometimes in hours, to a disease that robs the body of all liquid, stiffens the blood, and makes your face turn blue...and not having any idea where it came from! Such was life in the early industrial city which, Johnson reminds us (constantly), was a disorganized, densely-packed collection of people, animals, smells, dirt, and excrement.
The story is essentially the story of two men - a doctor and a curate - who help to not only stop the "Broad Street" cholera outbreak, but change public opinion about the source of diseases such as cholera. Reading about the public health establishment's desperate clinging to the "miasma" theory of disease strikes us as comical, if it had not been such a deadly mistake. I am no expert in the history of epidemiology (though I have no doubt that the Broad Street epidemic and the work of Doctor Snow and Reverend Whitehead were elemental to the paradigm shift concerning the nature of epidemic disease). However, I often felt like Johnson was making overly-broad pronouncements concerning the Broad Street outbreak's influence on the future. ESPECIALLY when, in the last 50 pages or so, Johnson starts going on about the nature of cities and starts talking about terrorism, nuclear weapons, New York's 311 system, and the internet. I understand the points he was trying to make; however, I felt that they were out of place with the tone and progression of the rest of the book. I think Johnson felt that he had to write some grand unifying conclusion that made the book "relevant" to the modern reader. Why does he have to do that? Isn't the story about how two men helped advance the germ theory of disease in a skeptical public health establishment enough?

On the writing: I found that Johnson has a tendency to repeat points much too often. By the end of the book, I thought maybe he was getting paid by the word. He also repeats words and frequently uses metaphors that are clunky, at best.

Wow!

I haven't touched this blog since 2008...maybe I should pick up where I left off. After all, I am filled with joy, lust, indignation, and various other feelings which need ventilation from my soul...