A classic that, âstirs the conscience of humanity.â âIt speaks for itself, and in a unforgettable way for humanity.â Both direct quotes from the New York Times, meant to not only advertise, but to capture the essence and purpose of the passage altogether. In all the reviews and notes Iâve read, Iâve yet to find a bad one. Not one single rotten apple, which I find particularly odd. Generally speaking, with any piece of literature comes many, many criticisms. If we scope in on that generalization, I find that typically, fiction receives much more critique than non-fiction. As far as Iâm concerned thatâs simply because the general belief that non-fiction is fact, takes over the mind of the reader. Non-fiction is not fact. At least not as often as youâve been lead to believe. A prime example of non-fiction drawing from fact in order to produce a strong narrative is John Herseyâs Hiroshima. Hiroshima is non-fiction, there is no arguing that. Itâs not based on an event with a made up story surrounding whatever that event may be. It is the telling of six real life stories of survivors of one of the most devastating events in world history. I think this is the only reason as to why there is so little critique of the book. Readers, reviewers, and the majority of my classmates seem to hold âhigh opinions,â of the book and have only good things to say about it. In retrospect, I felt like I should have had that reaction too, but alas I did not.Â
 Source
  While the narrative is strong, I found the book to be far less compelling than advertised. I donât want to get cocky, but the overall analysis felt like childâs play. I feel like Iâm asking for backlash in making that statement, but honesty, bring it on. Iâm sure Iâll be reprimanded and told Iâm wrong a million times over, but the book is straightforward and undemanding of the reader. The plot is simple and doesnât require much deep thinking, it only scratches the surface. I could be drawing this conclusion due to the fact that all Iâve been learning for the past two months is any and everything about the Manhattan Project and Hiroshima. It is a jarring topic, and the way Hersey conveyed the stories and paralleled them for the sake of literature was well done. But again, the evidence for my opinion is in my ability to recognize the possible themes, such as the disregard for the ethical side of the bomb, or the muted and serious tone, or even the lack of allusion. Who knows if it was Herseyâs intention to write something simplistic and comprehendible, after all he was tackling a recent, shocking, globally impacting event. Perhaps a less challenging read was what his audience needed.Â
  All of the above may make me seem pretentious and overconfident, but none of my previously stated opinions clarify whether or not I liked the book. The most basic analysis is deciding if I liked it, and I did. Or at least I didnât dislike it. Itâs not something that I think, âeveryone able to read should read.â All literature is subjective and it goes without saying that this book is a fantastic historical primary source. Iâm biased to the fictional lens and have never found an interest in reading biographyâs, narrative non-fiction, or anything similar. I appreciate obvious character development that becomes visible over time, and a plot that is unpredictable. Typically both of which you donât often see in non-fiction. I knew what I was reading before I opened the book. I figured that the character development Iâd see wouldnât be obvious, and would draw directly from real life. However, that is something that I can appreciate about this narrative. The detail is not as it would be in a fictional novel. Itâs often blatant and loud, in Hiroshima its under-exaggerated, blunt, short, and truthful. To my way of thinking, his diction is the only exacting part of his writing. The personification of death and suffering, the sparse biblical allusion despite the amount of Christian influence in the story. The overall analysis and critique was mostly plain sailing, but the actual reading demanded the reader to evoke their own feelings rather than have the author provide them with intense description and excessive adjectives.Â
  Ultimately, Hiroshima is a subjective piece of literature. It started as a document and was developed into a book, now itâs seen as a historically significant piece of evidence regarding the Pacific War and its culmination with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Itâs not going to be a fan favourite for everyone, but itâs clear that John Hersey needed to write it. It changed the perspective and the course of atomic culture in America and was a new journalistic take on a Japanese travesty and an American win. For some, it may âstir the conscience of the mind,â and for others like myself, it may not. Either I way it was influential enough to become and stay a classic of war.Â
