Comment
Author: Admin | 2025-04-28
In the United States on January 28, 2011The book has two main aspects -- telling the survivors' story, which it does in beautiful, painful detail through their own words -- and telling how Stern fought a major corporation that flagrantly flouted the law in a state bought and paid for by that industry and won. Its does both well, without making either element feel shortchanged.Buffalo Creek took place a few years before PTSD was coined as a description, but as Stern outlines the effects the disaster had on the survivors, it's clear that PTSD was the major effect of the disaster. It also was the biggest part of the legal battle, as Stern and his team fought to get the court and the mining company to recognize the mental suffering of the survivors. Stern compares it a few times to the effects on the survivors of the concentration camps during the Holocaust. Reading the survivors tell about that day, scene by scene, frame by frame, is painful. The imagery is vivid, and knowing they relive it every time they hear rain or try to go to sleep or do any number of other things most of us take for granted is mind-boggling.The first time Stern shows a survivor telling his story, it is a man whose young son was swept from his arms during the flood as they were carried away from the rest of their family. Stern tells how at the time he was hearing this, his son was about the same age, and he tried to imagine what it would be like seeing that happen with his own child. That's a tricky needle to thread in telling a story -- to relate something to your own life in a way that makes a connection without supplanting the original person's story. Stern does it with grace, and if I hadn't already been hooked by the facts of the case, that section would have compelled me to finish the story.The book is first-person, so it is impossible to separate story from storyteller. Stern comes across as somebody trying to do
Add Comment