Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
As the article argues, Isaac’s Storm ruffled some feathers with people because of some of the aspects of his book might have been a little historically accurate. Offman wrote that Fincher, a meteorologist, argues that Larson was trying to turn Cline into a scapegoat. I personally do not think that this was Larson’s intention. I do agree with Fincher that cline honestly did what he thought was best, (just like Larson said he did when gathering the facts for the book) but I do not think that he was attempting to turn Cline into a scapegoat. I believe that Cline was simply the best person to take the position of the main character of the book.
One part of the article I did find particularly intersecting is when Larson is quoting saying that “he assumed it was common knowledge” when referring to the divide between Isaac and Joseph after the storm (Offman). This assumption indicates to me that he may not have done as much research on this topic as he could have on this particular aspect of the book. Especially after Fincher pointed out another book mentioned the two brothers speaking highly of each other shortly after the storm took place.
Honestly, I think that Larson did bend the truth in a few places, but it was to help add readability to the book and I do not think that his style of writing is unconventional like rhruska says. Maybe I am biased because this book was a nice change of pace from some of the dense articles we have to read, but I appreciate the fact that he chose to make the book enjoyable and although it does have flaws, what doesn’t have a flaw?