There is much to enjoy in this story and there is often equal offsetting distractions that can turn a reader off.

Firstly, the unique way of story-telling is worth the price of the book. The imagination of the author is rich and varied. As implausible as the story would be in real life, an element of believeability exists.

The major shortcoming for me is in the manner the story is told: more like a play than a novel. Each of the two protagonists have a by-line for anywhere from a paragraph ... (show more)

There is much to enjoy in this story and there is often equal offsetting distractions that can turn a reader off.

Firstly, the unique way of story-telling is worth the price of the book. The imagination of the author is rich and varied. As implausible as the story would be in real life, an element of believeability exists.

The major shortcoming for me is in the manner the story is told: more like a play than a novel. Each of the two protagonists have a by-line for anywhere from a paragraph to a page or two. These by-lines are dated and or the age of one or both of the characters are given at that time (which, as the time is travelled is often either before or after an event or simultaneously with one character being one age or even two at the same time. You will have to read it to make sense of that. BUT, and a big but, this means that the author is constantly taking one of the two major characters and 'talking' their lines. Fine and good, but most of the time it is in the author's words !! He loses the actual personality, gender, age etc of the characters. The both use the same vocabulary, figures of speech, intonations etc. This can be VERY offputting.

On the plausibility side, there are many referenes to the code of silence for a time-traveller. Why else would he travel naked? It is to ensure he brings nothing with him and takes nothing back with him. But it also means he cannot tell anyone about the future. But after establishing this inviolable principle, the author then allows it to be broken without allowing the obvious repercussions to play out. Due to this fault, the novel falls down.

Yes, it is a good romantic story, but flakey and that is what makes it entertaining and worth the read. For my 'druthers' I would have liked to see a stronger ending with all the hope that could be envisioned with the potential of seeing in the future those who died in the present and more particularly the hope, romance and joy that could have been imparted in just a few paragraphs for the 3rd character introduced past the half Waymark of the story. (show less)

The LONGEST NIGHT was.... well, it is the longest time I have taken to make my mind up about a book. I asked:
1. Is this a book which is part fiction? A: no.
2. Is it all facts? A. no.
3. Is it a historical book primarily? A. yes, but not like other more readable history books.

So what is it that confused me for so long?

If one reads say, Margaret MacMillan (Canada's awarded Historian), she is emminently readable and her books carry a reader from paragraph to paragraph, page to... (show more)

The LONGEST NIGHT was.... well, it is the longest time I have taken to make my mind up about a book. I asked:
1. Is this a book which is part fiction? A: no.
2. Is it all facts? A. no.
3. Is it a historical book primarily? A. yes, but not like other more readable history books.

So what is it that confused me for so long?

If one reads say, Margaret MacMillan (Canada's awarded Historian), she is emminently readable and her books carry a reader from paragraph to paragraph, page to page and chapter to chapter with a thirst for more of what she has to say. Another example, Ishmael Beah in his historical "Memoris of a Boy Soldier" (A Long Way Gone) is the same. But Gavin Mortimer is/was trying to achieve something with this book that couldn't square with me no matter how I looked at it. At the end he named the 'Characters' by their real, non-fictitious names. The 'characters' were never really developed and appeared to pop up in the dialogues in situations connected only by the randomness of a bomb, incendiary or other explosive falling in their midst.

Within the book, he quoted conversations, letters, telegrams and all sorts of other communications and attributed to each 'character' as accurately as he could their words and thoughts. However, he somehow missed their feelings. He attempted to convey the fear, the dread, the enormity of the devastation falling in one part of one city all night long with fires that he describes as 'conflagations' and dead bodies identified by their mass and their stench. Attempted... I couldn't get into his attempt. At the conclusion Mortimer does make an effort to bring all the characters to a fitting end by saying what happened to each other, but to little use in my opinion - too little too late. I needed to own some of the characters and feel where they had come from and how much their grief, loss and terror was pitted against steely resolve, determination, hope, faith and prayer of the city.

So much ink was spent on describing the location of every pub, store, office building, landmark, church, political place, docks, warehouses etc. I soon let my mind wander and wonder... I wondered if anyone reading the book, other than those whom he now rightly claims to be mostly dead after 60+ years, really would care about the individual damage of/or to so many edifices and establishments. Surely today's reader primarily wants to know the overall devastation and what contributed to it in terms of offence and defence; and then, of the people, their lives before, during, and after - all this as the primary element. Secondly we would want to know the anecdotes that give any good book a 'readable' status. In this regard, Mortimer gave us an example of a young couple who spent an entire night standing under an archway underground not knowing what was happening only to emerge after the all clear sounded and find themselves surrounded by the worst of their fears and horror beyond their imagination including body parts in the streets. They go to their respective homes and the young woman arrives where her mom is waiting for her in a neighborhood that was not bombed. When she hears that her daughter and male friend spent the night together huddled in the tube - she explored no further with inquisitiveness - she just said: "Oh dear what are the neighbours going to say when they hear that you two spent the night together..." THAT was funny, and it certainly spelt out a Brit mom of that epoch if not human nature most of the time. There were several anecdotes such as that, but not enough and not well connected to keep up the voracious hunger readers can have for the next page when digesting such intense latent emotion just waiting to be exploited by the mighty pen.

Montgomery gave a good accounting of the media, scant attention to the real politics except for a few choice lines from Churchill, and for me, nowhere near enough about the airmen, the spitfires and other air-machines of the British. The German Luftwaffe got the most of the author's airforce attention.

My father was on the Ack-Ack guns during the war and in the tank corp although he did not see action in the latter. I believe I was looking for the filler on the blitz that my taciturn dad never would share with me and never did. Perhaps I expected too much. BUT, comparing this history book to others I have read - it was not a great read. It was however a superb compendium of facts that is a must read in some form for those who want to know about that time in history and have a better understanding of the British resolve. I close with a compliment: I appreciated the warmth and humanity inserted regarding some Germans who wished they didn't have to do what they did and also some Brits who understood that most Germans were just in a forced role... (show less)