[lobster_johnson]

Hyperbolic? Well, it is right at the beginning of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and it's Rhodes' hook used to introduce the bigger story.

But even so, he's not wrong. Szilard did have (or claimed to have) a sudden epiphay, which according to Rhodes was significantly informed by H. G. Wells' "The World Set Free", which does foretell nuclear war and "a way to the future, death into the world" etc.

[lutusp]

> Hyperbolic? Well, it is right at the beginning of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and it's Rhodes' hook used to introduce the bigger story.

Then I retract my comment (too late to edit it) -- Rhodes' book is first-rate, one of the best on its topic. I've enjoyed Rhodes' writing on this topic immensely, and I can't recommend it too highly. I didn't realize the comment came from that book (I found it in an online Szilárd biography).

This is one of my all-time favorite books, along with its sequel.

[lobster_johnson]

It's incredible. I don't think I have read a non-fiction book that is as novelistic.

With TMAB he had the luxury of being allowed to paint a huge, sweeping story. I felt that Dark Sun suffered a little from not having the same width of canvas; it has to deal with a lot of different events and concerns, from the Rosenbergs to Oppenheimer's trial. But it's still a great book.

Speaking of which, I found Eric Schlosser's "Command and Control" to be horribly written in comparison. The writing is uneven and sloppy, and the way he jumps between two different stories (the Damascus incident and then the story of nuclear weapons) doesn't work at all. If I'm reading a (if not from a literary point of view, then at least factually) fascinating depiction of a nuclear incident, I don't want it to stop every few pages because the author wants to backtrack and tell me about the history of nuclear weapons. It's unfortunate, because the history the book tries to depict is fascinating.

Anyway, I wonder if Rhodes' other writings are as good?

[eyepulp]

Been re-reading Rhodes' book the last few weeks and it's spectacular, not to mention some great turns of phrase. I really wish someone would make a multi-part tv documentary based off his book. Just fascinating stuff.

[lobster_johnson]

Indeed. The new WGN show "Manhattan" [1] was extremely disappointing in that regard. It's highly fictionalized, and having read TMAB and other books and articles about the project, I found most of its depictions of Los Alamos unrecognizable.

Among the scientists, only Oppenheimer is included (and the actor is horribly miscast); no mention of Fermi or Feynman or Teller or any of the others. If you're doing a series on the Manhattan project in Los Alamos, how can you not have Feynman skulking around cracking safes open and disobeying curfew (not to mention the tragedy of his wife's situation), or Teller keeping everyone awake by playing Bach loudly on his vintage Steinway far into the night?

The movie "Fat Man and Little Boy" is interesting, as it's a straight attempt at telling the Los Alamos story, but dramatically it falls pretty flat, and both lead roles are extremely miscast. (The most interesting part of it is a fictionalized version of the Slotin/Daghlian incidents where John Cusack gets radiated.)

The canniest casting of Oppenheimer so far was the 1980 miniseries "Oppenheimer" with Sam Waterston, which is great classic "theater television"; ultimately just a bunch of people talking, in various rooms, with a static camera and many closeups. Waterston looks quite a bit like Oppenheimer, and captures his combination of keen intelligence and boyish enthusiasm.

Edit: Forgot to say, Dark Sun is also interesting. Not as lyrical, but chock full of fascinating history.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_(TV_series)

[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078037/