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
Like armando35 I also believe that Larson’s style of writing is an “effective way to tell the story of the flood”. However, Larson’s style of writing has both pros and cons. First, the style in which he writes makes the book fairly easy and enjoyable to read. Obviously I did not enjoy reading about the deaths of so many men women and children, but the way he writes makes it so it is bearable. He tells the stories of people first, then gives the actual numbers later. I found this effective because after reading about the stories and was very curious as to the actual logistics of the destruction. There were times that Larson would jump around chronologically which was a little disorienting at times, however I do believe it was an effective way of organizing the book.
Undoubtedly to aid in making this book enjoyable to read, there were some truths exaggerated such as the hilt of the sword we mentioned in class. However, one part I found particularly interesting was the story of Ruby Credo from page 206 to 209. Credo recalls of how he was able to regather his family after they had been separated while being carried away in the water. On page 207 Larson mentions in the book that “all this occurred in darkness” making this feat very impressive. I am not sure if Larson mentions this to cast doubt upon the story or showcase the heroic action of Credo. Due to how the situation was described in the book the fact that Credo was able to do that seems impossible and makes me think that this story was greatly exaggerated whether in the book or when it was originally recorded.