Dark Tide and Freakonomics

Dark Tide

At first Dark Tide was hard to read. Stephen Puleo would jump around from one year to the next and then go back to the first year. After awhile though it helped. I could see the connections that he was trying to make. The reason he would jump around from person to person or from year to year is because they were related in some way and it helps the reader. He didn't leave anything unsaid and if something was mentioned in one section and it didn't have a lot of details surrounding it, the next section would be about that event or person. Also, Puleo is very descriptive. Unlike most books about historical events, Dark Tide allowed me to get a sense of what was happening at that time and what people in the North End were like. He doesn't just say something, he elaborates on it and makes sure the reader is fully aware of the time that the book takes place. I felt as if I wasn't reading a nonfiction book because usually for me those are boring. Dark Tide was told like a story. There wasn't just random facts and just short biographies of the people affected. Puleo really wanted his readers to know about the people who died or who were injured from the molasses flood.

Freakonomics

For the second book I decided to switch to Freakonomics. I'm actually not that far into the book. But, I feel as if Levitt and Dubner are just trying to prove other people wrong. To tell you the truth it reminds me of my older brother because he will just say random things that have somewhat of a connection to the conversation and he will think he is right. At first they say something that is right and all of the things behind it, but then they will put a twist on it. It just feels like I'm reading someone ranting about things in the world. My question is how the authors are making these connections. For an example in the introduction, it goes from the amount of money spent on campaigning to the amount of money spent on chewing gum in America. Campaigning and gum are not alike at all. The two are very different. Yes maybe the price is the same, but while doing research how did the authors come across the amount Americans spend on chewing gum every year? That just doesn't make sense to me. Like I said before it just seems like the book is just a rant. The first chapter is about schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers, but it doesn't mention the connection of the two for awhile. Yes the stuff said before does help with the connection, but I want to know how the two are related on the first page of that chapter, not about daycare and parents picking their kids up late.