(I'm getting up in under eight hours, so I must be quick.)
A few weeks (months?) ago, an article about President Bush mentioned a book he was reading (had read?) about the deposing of Neville Chamberlain and placement of Winston Churchill in his place. Although the article alone was amusing, I decided to read the book as well. So, I checked Lynne Olson's Troublesome Young Men: The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power and Helped Save England out of a local branch of the library.
I think it's a history book. At least, it shows many of the characteristics of history books, and while I am hardly well-informed about the time, it gives the impression of genuine scholarship. I suppose that qualifies.
It wants to be a thriller.
It is interesting how the conflicting urges of these two styles interplay in Olson's writing. She knows how to open her chapters in the middle of the action, how to develop the dramatic tension, how to pull the precise quote out of the historical record to make an impact. Against that, she knows that she cannot merely write what happens - each of her dramatic quotes are smoothly annotated, and when the presentation of related facts forces her to skitter back and forth in time, she invariably does so, however the suspense of the moment may be broken thereby. She takes the reader straight into the House of Parliament in the most visceral fashion to show the decisive vote - and lingers on there for a few chapters more past the climax, that we will not be ignorant of how things played out in the days, months, and decades to follow.
The reader - or, at least, this reader - bemoans the dreadful abuses Lynne perpetuates on her storytelling, and applauds them for the greater accuracy gained by their presence.
Troublesome Young Men is not what it hoped to be, perhaps. But it is easily readable, clearly informative, and even in places a page-turner. Would I buy it? I can't say. Would I read it? Absolutely.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
