The Great Influenza: The Story Of The Deadliest Pandemic In History (2005) - Plot & Excerpts
Overall this was a very good book. Expansive, thorough, and at times utterly fascinating. I'm sure people around me are completely sick of me talking about the flu at this point but this is that kind of book that will do that to you. It falls short of getting five stars for a couple of reasons, some of which are about the book but most of which are about me as a reader:1. It's almost too expansive: In Barry's quest to explore every possible nook and cranny of the 1918 Influenza pandemic he leaves no scientific idea or historical actor unearthed and thoroughly discussed. This lends to a skater shot feel to the book as you lurch from one person to another in chronological order with whole chapters about the science of viruses and bacteria popping up here and there to interrupt the forward momentum of the story. I feel like I got a about a dozen very short, somewhat shallow, biographies in this one book and a bit more science that I really wanted. 2. Lack of a supporting personal story or strong main character: When I contrast this book with Steven Johnson's "Ghost Map", which is all about John Snow and how he dealt with a cholera outbreak in London in the 19th Century, I find that it didn't hold my attention all the time because I didn't really connect with any of the people in the book or feel like there was a broad narrative that was pulling me along. Sure, he does a good job of showing how the pandemic began, how it peaks, and how it ebbs but the pandemic is far too amorphous for me to really relate to. And while he clearly shows how many of the people in the book react at these different phases I didn't really feel like I got to know any of them with the kind of detail that Johnson pulled out of John Snow.3. Hey, you got your science book in my history book! No, you got your history book in my science book! Wow, they're two great genres that kind of make for a confusing mess when you put them all together: Okay, this gripe is all about me as a reader. I'm WAY more interested in history and politics than science. Unless the science is about robots, zombies, or space ships at a certain point I kind of just zone out. Barry, at times, gets super deep on the science of influenza explaining in great detail how it infects the body and causes no end of problems. While it is a great feat of writing to talk about that sort of thing without losing the reader (to his credit it was never confusing) it doesn't make for a compelling read for me. When Barry talks about history in this book it's completely riveting, I literally couldn't put it down, but then there would be a speed bump science chapter and I'd have to slog through it to get back to the ideas that were the most interesting to me. It made for a frustrating read at times.Over all I would highly recommend this book. It really was quite good, my gripes aside. And, frankly, the historical implications of the book make it worth the read alone (namely that at a crucial junction in the negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I Pres. Wilson came down with the flu and it, for a bunch of reasons, left him possibly permanently mentally impaired - he believed from that point on that French spies had infiltrated the White House for example - is shocking. Given that that treaty is often held directly responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany, and World War II, and that the principle features of that treaty may have caused the rise of the Nazi's were almost all pushed by the French and opposed by Pres. Wison, until his bought with the flu that is, one is left believing if not for the flu the world could have been very different). If you like science and enjoy history I think this would be a very satisfying reading experience.As an aside, I gave this book to my Grandmother for Christmas in 2009 when she was 91 years old. She and I developed a pattern late in her life of me giving her books that I'd read that I liked for birthdays and Christmas. She was an avid reader and game to read anything, although like me her preferences were more inclined to history, biography, and travel. This was one of the rare books I gave her without reading first. When I asked her, on Christmas 2011, to lend me one of her favorite books she gave me this one. She was born in April of 1918, near the beginning of this book, and I think for her the book explained a lot of things people would mention in her childhood that never made much sense (relatives who died during the flu, particular idioms people would use, or beliefs they had about sickness). She died in March of 2012 just a month shy of 94. In reading this book I am profoundly impressed by her intelligence. This book is not an easy read in spots (there were sections I read twice) and for someone who didn't even finish high school to read this book and not only understand it but enjoy it is a testament to the amazing person she was. This book still has the post-it note she always put on the inside front cover of books she got as gifts with the date, occasion, and person(s) who gave it to her. While she may be gone it makes me happy that she and I could at least share this one last experience together.
This book had promise, and is good in spots - but the overall product suffers greatly from lack of direction and editorial control. If I could rate the best third of the book, I would give it five stars. The other two thirds of the book suffers substantially from a lack of focus, inclusion of unnecessary information, and overly dramatic narrative. And, to add insult to injury, the footnotes are handled in such a fashion that they become nearly useless.In the afterword, it becomes quite obvious that the author made a bad assumption at the start of his endeavor. After spending seven years researching the book, he concluded that he could not tell the story of the epidemic without covering the history medical science leading up until that time. He also wanted to write the book from the perspective of the scientists and politicians who reacted to the influenza outbreak; he seemed more interested in covering their actions than the virus itself.These assumptions are incorrect. The most interesting and relevant portion of the book is the history of the virus itself. If Barry had simply explained how the virus worked, how it may have come into being, and then followed each wave of the epidemic in chronological order, this book would have been much more enjoyable and much shorter. Instead, he covers material which is not relevant - and by focusing on this material he breaks up his coverage of the virus, thereby rendering the best part of the book less enjoyable.The first third of the book is dedicated to the history of modern medical science. Some of the material is of interest, but this history is not necessary for any discussion of the influenza virus. It has absolutely no impact on the remainder of the book. The reader could simply skip the first 30% of the book and would not notice it. I actually found this information to be interesting, that that does not warrant their inclusion in a 450 page book with a supposed focus on the 1918 epidemic.The second portion of the book is the most direct discussion of the virus in the book, and it is quite good. Barry provides a brief explanation of how the virus works and why it is so successful. He then discusses the impact of the disease, rivaling any horror story while doing so. The amount of chaos and suffering caused by the outbreak is quite sobering.During this time, Barry also discusses the prevailing political climate. As this outbreak occurred during WWI. President Wilson's desire to turn the entire country into a weapon required news of the virus to be controlled rather tightly. This was exacerbated by a good deal of corruption at lower levels of government. The result was a climate in which misinformation and inaction killed tens of thousands of Americans. This material is entirely relevant, and I actually might have liked for him to focus more on it.The last portion of the book covers the scientific community's attempts to control the virus. This is really a misguided effort, as there is no significant discovery to work towards. While the scientists Barry introduces the reader to are all very accomplished, none of them are able to make any headway with their influenza work. The book becomes a spastic collection of various experiments carried out by a handful of scientists. The text is hard to follow as it is all over the map, and after you finish it you realized that the last third of the book is about as relevant as the first third, only less interesting. It is almost comical; one of the scientists he covers during the entire book is Paul Lewis. Towards the end of the book, after discussing Paul Lewis' troubled family life ad nauseam, and filling the reader in on all sorts of work Lewis did with tuberculosis (which had no impact on any influenza research), Barry goes on to tell us how Lewis died while working with the yellow fever in Brazil. So essentially, any mention of Paul Lewis in the book was completely superfluous.
What do You think about The Great Influenza: The Story Of The Deadliest Pandemic In History (2005)?
John Barry is in love with science and we are the beneficiaries in this comprehensive account of the influenza epidemic that came at the end of WWI. Some of his prose is quite lyrical when he praises the scientific method and the virtue of rational thinking combined with imagination in some of the researchers he covers.But there are villains as well as heroes here as we enter an earlier time where government did almost nothing while private initiatives and funding allied with individual effort to fight disease. You'll get a view of the Wilson administration and the issues of post-war politics. You'll discover the primitive state of American medicine at the turn of the 20th century. You'll learn why the Germans and the French were far ahead in medical research in the beginning of the book and how one American was instrumental in pulling together the human and financial resources to advance the training of a group of American doctors to equal that of the Europeans.Any history should teach the reader a thing or two and this book excels in that. Medical terms are introduced and carefully explained as are the basic concepts of genetics. How does a virus attack a healthy cell and why does a virus mutate so rapidly that any drug is hard-pressed to remain effective even over a period of months? You'll find out.I happened across an article in a current newspaper dealing with the attempt to find a vaccine that would be effective against all viruses and to my surprise I found I understood all of the terms because I had read this book.Written with an intensity and urgency that will keep your attention, The Great Influenza deserves a read.
—Clif
I thought this would be a history of the misnamed Spanish flu of 1918 (it originated in the US, but since Spain was one of the few countries not at war and not censoring information, it took that country’s name). This book included information about the epidemic, but also extensive details about the founding of Johns Hopkins and the Rockefeller Institute and the men (and at least one woman) involved in those organizations. I had been hoping for the story of the epidemic all over the world, but this account was focused on the US with only minimal attention for other regions. I thought the parts about the epidemic were interesting, but I found the writing style repetitive and long-winded. Rounding up to 3 stars.
—A.L. Sowards
Who edited this book and WHY did they ever let John Barry away with destroying what could have been the most fascinating story about an epic period of recent human history with tedious hyperbole, stilted melodrama, and a simple lack of good sense? Barry spends far too much time talking about non-players/minor players and the minutiae of their lives apart from the influenza making the reading utterly dull in parts. On the other hand, much of the real and relevant writing about the epidemic is fascinating and intelligent. If only he'd stuck to that but alas, he got trapped by his own romantic notions of what writing should be: "It was, after all, only influenza". I counted 42 repetitions of this tiresome phrase over 25 pages. There were so many other examples like this one I started to edit the book myself after a while, circling, deleting, and underlining with a vengeance. Such a shame to have had a potentially great book wasted by the unnecessary and seemingly vain inclusion of ALL possible research related to the topic. He should have written a few boring journal articles with all the extraneous stuff and stuck to his central topic for the book. Don't read it unless you like lots of repetition, overused terminology, and digging desperately through the rubbish to find the gems.
—Joanne
