Blame The Dead: WWII Field Hospital Mystery

I was approached by publicist Alessandra Scarpaci via e-mail asking if I was interested in reviewing the historical mystery, Blame The Dead by Ed Ruggero.  The promotional material emphasized Ruggero's military background as a West Point graduate and an army officer.  It also mentioned women's issues and the role that women played in the military during WWII.  I realized that I hadn't read any WWII novel by an author like Ruggero. I also had never read a mystery in which the setting was a field military hospital in wartime.  So I requested a digital ARC which I received free of charge via Net Galley.

                       

Last year, I had been taken aback by the WWII novel, The Light Over London by Julia Kelly, because I had been anticipating a novel primarily about gunnery girls in London.  My review of Light Over London appeared on Flying High Reviews, my blog focusing on female protagonists, at the hyperlink I've provided. I discovered that the military content amounted to only about 10% of Kelly's book.  With Ruggero at the helm, I didn't think I would need to readjust my expectations of  Blame the Dead.

I saw a review on Goodreads that dismissed this novel because the protagonist was an ordinary member of the MP (military police).  Given the author's knowledge of the military,  I didn't think it likely that he'd made that kind of mistake.  The reviewer pointed out that the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) would be investigating.  So I hunted down the History of CID and discovered that in August of 1943, when Blame The Dead took place, criminal investigations in the U.S. Army were still the province of local MPs.  Never accuse an author of inauthenticity unless you've done the research to support your claim.  It was actually very easy to find the source I linked dealing with the CID's history.

The women in Blame the Dead were nurses. I was delighted that not all of them were content to remain victims of  physicians who abused their positions of power. The most notably strong female character was Nurse Kathleen Donnelly. She was determined, courageous and a quick thinker. She's just the sort of person you'd want with you in a crisis. 

There were a number of people committing crimes at various levels of severity in Blame the Dead. Since the main reason why I read mysteries is to see justice done, I was disturbed that one offender got away with serious crimes.  Some readers may consider this character sympathetic, but I couldn't deal with the injustice.  That was my only significant problem with this book.

I felt that Blame the Dead realistically portrayed the period, and the military hospital context.  It showed the impact of routine sexual harassment and assault on women. It also showed the impact of poor leadership, corruption and abuse of authority. The resolution was a bit too noir for me, but I thought it was well-written.

                               

Water Darling: A Novel Dealing With Rain Callers and Racism in 1920's Oklahoma

Water Darling by Evan Ramspott is my third Historical Fictionistas giveaway win that's getting a review on this blog.  The previous wins from this Goodreads group that I've reviewed here are Peddler of Wisdom and Before We Were Yours.  The hyperlinks will take you to the reviews.  I received a free copy of Water Darling from the author and this is my honest review.

                             

The strongest aspect of this novel involved the massacre in Tulsa in 1921. It's a powerful description of the terrible violence of this event.  I had no trouble following the changing perspectives, but some readers may be confused. I think that the constant switching of viewpoints effectively conveyed the utter chaos in Tulsa at the time.

Ramspott said in his acknowledgements that his main source was the report from the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921.  This is a 200 page report.  I downloaded it, but didn't have time to read it yet.  For those who are interested, the pdf is available at https://www.okhistory.org/research/forms/freport.pdf.
  
 I looked at the talk section in the Wikipedia article called The Tulsa Race Riot. There was a controversy about whether it should be called a riot or a massacre. There's yet another perspective.  A book that Ramspott lists in his bibliography by James S. Hirsch bears the title, Riot and Remembrance:  The Tulsa Race War and its Legacy. Readers of Water Darling  can decide for themselves whether Ramspott is portraying it as a riot, a massacre or a race war.

Water Darling could have been two separate novels, and perhaps that is what Evan Ramspott should have done. There would have been a paranormal character-oriented book about rain callers, their training, their internal conflicts and the difficulties of  rain calling as a profession. The other book would  have focused on racism--particularly the deadly paroxysm of societal racism that led to the massacre in Tulsa.

It seemed to me that the attempt to connect rain calling and the horrific event that happened in Tulsa in 1921 did not benefit the book as a whole.  The rain calling aspect was underdeveloped.  If protagonist Imogene's career as a rain caller had been a separate book, we could have had a broader view of rain calling and its practitioners.  Readers could have met potentially fascinating characters that are only mentioned in Water Darling, and discovered more about Imogene's interactions with them. The Tulsa massacre aspect as a separate novel would have been a better paced, more action oriented book.

Another problem I had with Water Darling is that Imogene went through a process of maturation during the novel that wasn't completed during the course of the narrative.  So I never got the chance to say that now Imogene is a strong woman protagonist.  I thought she was almost there, but I'm not convinced from the epilogue that it actually happened.  The epilogue was a sketchy summary. It didn't tell me what I really wanted to know about Imogene.  I was looking for some sort of  scene that would illustrate her growth.
 
Although I was impressed with the Tulsa massacre section and Ramspott's research into the historical record about it,  I have to conclude that Water Darling is a flawed novel that didn't meet all of my expectations.

                                 

Fight of the Century: Essays on Significant ACLU Cases

What drew me to Fight of the Century edited by Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman was prominent author names.  When I choose fiction anthologies because I love one or more of the authors, I am often surprised to find that the stories I liked most were by people whose names I didn't know at all.  This volume of non-fiction essays was less surprising.  Authors with a legal background, or who had written about topics related to the case, wrote better essays.

Obviously, my standards for non-fiction are different from fiction.  I am more interested in learning something from a non-fiction essay, than in how it's written.  My goal for Fight of the Century was to learn more about the issues involved in the case, its participants or its impact.  The essays I favored were the ones that I considered the most eye-opening.  Other readers may be better informed about a particular issue than I am.  The reverse may also be true.  There could be readers who are less informed than I am about the subjects of an essay that I considered a re-hash of familiar points.  These readers will probably have other choices for the best contributions to this anthology.

                         

I admit to being prejudiced against bestselling authors.   This is based on my experience of bestsellers.  With a few exceptions, I have found them superficial and poorly written.   This is the reason why I  haven't even looked at Scott Turow's  legal thrillers.  After having read his essay in Fight of the Century , I am thinking that I ought to try one of them. Testimony seems to be the most aligned with my interests.

Turow's contribution to Fight of the Century, "Spending Money Isn't Speech", astonished me because I hadn't known that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) actually supported what I, and many others, consider to be among the most harmful Supreme Court decisions of the first decade of the 21st century.  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) has made it nearly impossible to legislate against the interests of powerful corporations and has led to the current situation in the United States in which democracy is in jeopardy.

Turow actually wasn't writing in response to Citizens United.  His essay deals with a key legal precedent that buttressed the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United, Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which eliminated any limitations on how much a political campaign can spend.  The ACLU also supported that decision, saying that campaign spending limitations violated free speech.  It seems to me self-evident that the reverse is true.  Without any limitations, the costs of campaigning have skyrocketed.  This means that candidates who are wealthy have the advantage.  This can lead to the suppression of candidates who represent less monied interests.   The ACLU claims to support the public funding of campaigns, but Turow points out that unlimited spending makes public funding of elections unworkable.  He argues that in order for it to be viable, either all campaigns must rely solely on public financing, or public financing must be able to match privately financed candidates.  This is impossible when billionaires with unlimited funds are pouring money into elections.

Turow then brings Citizens United into his discussion of Buckley v. Valeo.  Citizens United allowed anonymous corporations to fund PACs (Political Action Groups).  This is called "dark money" because the sources of that money are unknown. Turow states that this facilitates illegal foreign interference in American elections since foreigners can own corporations.  I actually hadn't made that connection.  I feel that campaign finances are an urgent issue.  This is why I rated Turow's essay highest.  I gave it an A+.

There are three other essays that I rated A which I want to bring to the attention of my readers.

I have read contributor Dave Eggers'  non-fiction book, Zeitoun, and was very impressed with it at the time I read it.  I have since learned that Abdulrahman Zeitoun, who was portrayed as heroic in Eggers' book, was a wife abuser.  He was convicted of felony stalking of his former wife, Kathy Zeitoun.  She revealed the abuse some time after the book's publication.  So I don't hold Eggers responsible for not mentioning it, but I do now feel highly ambivalent about his book. See the Aftermath section of the Wikipedia article on Zeitoun for further information.

 Eggers' essay in Fight of the Century is "Legal Counsel at the Moment Most Crucial" which was about Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), a case which allowed suspects to have a lawyer present when they are interrogated by police.   Eggers has researched the problem of forced confessions during police interrogations.  I wasn't aware of the extent and seriousness of this issue before reading this essay.  Readers who are interested in justice reform will find it as important as I did.

The reason why I am calling attention to "Loving", Aleksandr Hemon's essay on Loving v. Virginia (1967), is because of Hemon's perspective on the case.  Many readers might wonder what someone who was born in Sarajevo could bring to discussion of a Supreme court ruling that declared racist laws against miscegenation unconstitutional.  How is Hemon's experience relevant?  The attitude in Sarajevo toward marriages in which the partners were from two different ethnic groups changed radically as a result of the tragic civil war that took place in Bosnia.  Hemon discusses his feelings about this issue in the context of the social upheaval in his country of origin.  He also mentions his own twelve year marriage to an African American woman. I felt that the way Hemon addressed Loving v. Virginia was moving and highly appropriate.

"You've Given Me A Lot To Think About" by science fiction writer Charlie Jane Anders genuinely did give me a lot to think about regarding the case of Schroer v. Billington (2008) in which a transgender woman experienced employment discrimination.  It was an opportunity for me to clarify my thoughts on this topic. It also reminded me to read Anders' novel The City in the Middle of the Night.

This was a provocative anthology.  A number of the court cases dissected in this volume continue to be subjects of controversy that divide American society.  I predict that Fight of the Century will be regarded as a valuable reference book to be cited in the ongoing debates that are central to my nation's politics.