Reaction to Catastrophe

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

After reading the second half of Larson’s book Isaac’s Storm, I was once again surprised by the amount of destriptive writing that was present. The part of the book that drew my attention the most was the description of the aftermath of the storm and how the bodies of the dead were dealt with. In this section, Larson does not shy away from the seemingly gruesome reality of the situation. He attempts to paint a picture of the horrible aftermath in the mind of the reader. In one excerpt, Laarson describes “The scent of burning hair and flesh, the latter like burnt sugar, suffused the air” (Larson, 202). I believe Larson wanted to be as descriptive as possible in order to convince the reader of the scope of destruction, and the lasting trauma it caused the people of the town.

Another aspect I noticed was a recurring descriptions of social response during the aftermath of the storm. Once again, we can analyze the event through disaster history to deduce information on society at the time. An interesting note on social norms was made during the description of creamation. People were utterly appalled by the urgency of the task. This was interesting as creamation is practiced today and is seen as a normal practice. However, it is only normal in a ceremonial situation rather than for necessity. Larson even brings up the issue of racist undertones in the aftermath. He describes how blacks were antagonized and blamed for stealing from corpses. A similar response was seen during the Chicago fire when the poor were antagonized as bandits. I also agree with derekjahwu‘s connection with the Chicago fire. The second part of the book demonstrates how people were even unprepared for the horrifiying aftermath as Larson portrayed it. While Larson’s narrative writing is unconventional, it still demonstrates historiographical depth.