mcf 's review for:

Bunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick

3.0

---

Disappointing. I've liked Philbrick before (In the Heart of the Sea), but Bunker Hill felt unfocused, as if either Philbrick or his editors didn't have enough confidence in his central topic to let it carry the book. Instead, tangents are introduced, presumably to add personal color to the story, but their effect is more distracting than anything else. In reality, the tangents (mostly about the personal lives of central characters) are so numerous and hefty that they ultimately make one wonder if there's been some misunderstanding about the actual topic of the book -- are we actually going to learn about the Battle of Bunker Hill, or no? Once Philbrick actually gets to Bunker Hill itself, the book picks up, but that section is strangely minor, feeling almost like an afterthought.

Don't me wrong -- Philbrick's research is excellent and his topic is a worthy one, it's just that the storytelling, in this case has let him down.