What do you think?
Rate this book
Fallout: J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and the Political Science of the Atomic Bomb
So, you've always wanted to learn how to build an atomic bomb? You're in luck: Jim Ottaviani is not only a comics writer...he also has a master's degree in nuclear engineering! But even though it's not a complete do-it-yourself manual (assembly required, and plutonium is definitely not included), Fallout will bring you up to speed on the science and politics of the first nuclear gadgets.
Like its companion volumes, the focus of Fallout is on the scientists themselves -- in particular J. Robert Oppenheimer and Leo Szilard, whose lives offer a cautionary tale about the uneasy alliance between the military, the government, and the beginnings of "big science."
Like its companion volumes, the focus of Fallout is on the scientists themselves -- in particular J. Robert Oppenheimer and Leo Szilard, whose lives offer a cautionary tale about the uneasy alliance between the military, the government, and the beginnings of "big science."
240 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 2001
11 people are currently reading
479 people want to read
About the author
Jim Ottaviani
23 books299 followersI've worked at news agencies and golf courses in the Chicagoland area, nuclear reactors in the U.S. and Japan, and libraries in Michigan. When I'm not staying up late writing comics about scientists, I'm spraining my ankles and flattening my feet by running on trails. Or I'm reading. I read a lot.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
January 21, 2011
A factual and scientific overview of the Manhatten Project composed with art from multiple graphic novel artists and a dramatic narrative from author Ottaviani. This book reviews the historical and scientific aspects of the creation of the atom bomb, but also takes a very keen look at the effect of the creation on the consciousnesses of the creators and the lasting effects on their lives.
Many writers have found the graphic novel forum to be a very effective way of communicating to a wider audience but also of using the artistic structure to convey themes that usually can only come across in movies- and sometimes poorly at that. Ottaviani takes full advantage of the fluid nature of a graphic medium to transport the reader both into actual times and places of the past, but also into the minds and moods of the characters. He tinkers with the facts but is true to the events and goes as far as appending explanations of every change and why it was done. At times the loose flow is hard to follow, and makes you wish that Fallout could be made into a motion picture to get a fuller effect of the sights and sounds that the writer and artists are expressing.
Readers of Fallout will draw inevitable comparisons to Maus, a prior graphic novel about World War II, and Ottaviani admits it as an influence is his source material. The comparison is unfair; Maus is an original masterpiece, where Fallout is a spin-off of sorts. Nonetheless, Fallout is a worthy inheritor of the legacy, and encapsulates a less traumatic but equally devestating aspect of the war.
I recommend this book to anyone who needs to learn more about one of the most devestating and powerful weapons ever devised- which would be just about anyone I know.
Many writers have found the graphic novel forum to be a very effective way of communicating to a wider audience but also of using the artistic structure to convey themes that usually can only come across in movies- and sometimes poorly at that. Ottaviani takes full advantage of the fluid nature of a graphic medium to transport the reader both into actual times and places of the past, but also into the minds and moods of the characters. He tinkers with the facts but is true to the events and goes as far as appending explanations of every change and why it was done. At times the loose flow is hard to follow, and makes you wish that Fallout could be made into a motion picture to get a fuller effect of the sights and sounds that the writer and artists are expressing.
Readers of Fallout will draw inevitable comparisons to Maus, a prior graphic novel about World War II, and Ottaviani admits it as an influence is his source material. The comparison is unfair; Maus is an original masterpiece, where Fallout is a spin-off of sorts. Nonetheless, Fallout is a worthy inheritor of the legacy, and encapsulates a less traumatic but equally devestating aspect of the war.
I recommend this book to anyone who needs to learn more about one of the most devestating and powerful weapons ever devised- which would be just about anyone I know.
September 28, 2015
My rating is really one star and change. The building of the atomic bomb, and the Manhattan Project in particular, makes for an absolutely fascinating story that has the potential to read like a thriller, full of crazy, unforgettable characters at odds with each other while being completely united. Unfortunately, this isn't that book. (That book does exist, and I reference it at the end of the review.)
Mr. Ottaviani's graphic novels on science are usually stellar, so I had high hopes for this one. The cover alone is a winner - that's Oppenheimer in the foreground with a mushroom cloud appearing to come out of his pipe! But the happy conjunction of Ottaviani and science - and that of words and pictures - slowly collapses until it takes a downward plunge in the last big section. It just doesn't work.
For one thing, using multiple artists for different sections was a very, very bad idea. There were literally thousands of people involved in making the bomb, and keeping them straight is essential to the story. Once you've been introduced to them both, you need to be able to tell Leo Szilard, who dreamed up the bomb in the first place and was the guy who got the Manhattan Project started before coming around to the anti-nukes perspective, from Edward Teller, who was as gung ho about nuclear weapons as it's possible to be and, before anyone knew the first bomb could work, started advocating for a program to build the H-bomb (which is much, much, much more destructive and deadly). Nuclear hawk vs. nuclear dove? Very important distinction. (I'm not getting into the details of Szilard lobbying for the start of the atomic bomb program and then lobbying to get it stopped later - it's much more complicated than that.) They're both short with broad faces, but surely it's best that they be presented consistently. That was a big problem when artists switched, too, because you had to relearn all over again which faces went with which names.
That would be simply an annoying problem if it weren't for the incoherence of the story as well. Ottaviani is doing himself no favors with layout, especially in the section on Oppenheimer's security clearance in '54 (where, again, I had troubles telling the Congressional committee from the "defense counsel" to Oppenheimer himself. The panels move from marching down the page and over to the next to marching across a full two-page spread without any indication that for the change or any reason why it's necessary. There's very little momentum in the comics part because the outside panels are often sacrificed to include the official correspondence between Oppenheimer and the committee. The politicalegalese is hard enough to read if you read it straight through. Reading one block at a time - blocks that end mid-sentence - for twelve pages in a row is ludicrous. No one's going to take away his comic book card for including one page that's straight text - it's a venerable comics tradition for notes, letters, anything that's just too long to be chopped up. The hearing section in general is a total failure. It's clearly meant to be the crux of the book in terms of character (Trinity is the crux of the science, of course), but I can't even say it falls flat because it never lifts off the ground in the first place.
The other annoying thing is that you really need the notes to know what's going on sometimes, but sometimes when you flip back for a note all you get is "this sentence actually comes from the follow-up letter Szilard sent on a month later on March 31." The amount of research that went into this book is impressive, but there's nothing that the reader cares about in there. Later completely confounding things are left with no explanation. Plus there's no indication of there being a notes section at all or which page/panel they apply to within the work itself. If you're not referring constantly back and forth to the notes, you won't know they're there.
Most annoying are the notes where Ottaviani explains what he's trying to do with a panel, as if he wants the reader to know how much talent he's put into it. If the book shows that talent to begin with, there's no need to tell me about it. If it doesn't, then the explanation comes off as delusional boasting. Either way it's a really bad idea.
Look, this subject is incredibly interesting and incredibly important. Richard Rhodes does an amazing job of covering this in his page-turner masterpiece, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Considering Ottaviani's other successes, I'm shocked to find this such an impenetrable book. The history is so rich and the people in it are such wonderful, maddening, brilliant characters too weird to be made up that the failure of this book is simply baffling.
Seriously, skip Fallout and read The Making of the Atomic Bomb. You won't regret it.
Mr. Ottaviani's graphic novels on science are usually stellar, so I had high hopes for this one. The cover alone is a winner - that's Oppenheimer in the foreground with a mushroom cloud appearing to come out of his pipe! But the happy conjunction of Ottaviani and science - and that of words and pictures - slowly collapses until it takes a downward plunge in the last big section. It just doesn't work.
For one thing, using multiple artists for different sections was a very, very bad idea. There were literally thousands of people involved in making the bomb, and keeping them straight is essential to the story. Once you've been introduced to them both, you need to be able to tell Leo Szilard, who dreamed up the bomb in the first place and was the guy who got the Manhattan Project started before coming around to the anti-nukes perspective, from Edward Teller, who was as gung ho about nuclear weapons as it's possible to be and, before anyone knew the first bomb could work, started advocating for a program to build the H-bomb (which is much, much, much more destructive and deadly). Nuclear hawk vs. nuclear dove? Very important distinction. (I'm not getting into the details of Szilard lobbying for the start of the atomic bomb program and then lobbying to get it stopped later - it's much more complicated than that.) They're both short with broad faces, but surely it's best that they be presented consistently. That was a big problem when artists switched, too, because you had to relearn all over again which faces went with which names.
That would be simply an annoying problem if it weren't for the incoherence of the story as well. Ottaviani is doing himself no favors with layout, especially in the section on Oppenheimer's security clearance in '54 (where, again, I had troubles telling the Congressional committee from the "defense counsel" to Oppenheimer himself. The panels move from marching down the page and over to the next to marching across a full two-page spread without any indication that for the change or any reason why it's necessary. There's very little momentum in the comics part because the outside panels are often sacrificed to include the official correspondence between Oppenheimer and the committee. The politicalegalese is hard enough to read if you read it straight through. Reading one block at a time - blocks that end mid-sentence - for twelve pages in a row is ludicrous. No one's going to take away his comic book card for including one page that's straight text - it's a venerable comics tradition for notes, letters, anything that's just too long to be chopped up. The hearing section in general is a total failure. It's clearly meant to be the crux of the book in terms of character (Trinity is the crux of the science, of course), but I can't even say it falls flat because it never lifts off the ground in the first place.
The other annoying thing is that you really need the notes to know what's going on sometimes, but sometimes when you flip back for a note all you get is "this sentence actually comes from the follow-up letter Szilard sent on a month later on March 31." The amount of research that went into this book is impressive, but there's nothing that the reader cares about in there. Later completely confounding things are left with no explanation. Plus there's no indication of there being a notes section at all or which page/panel they apply to within the work itself. If you're not referring constantly back and forth to the notes, you won't know they're there.
Most annoying are the notes where Ottaviani explains what he's trying to do with a panel, as if he wants the reader to know how much talent he's put into it. If the book shows that talent to begin with, there's no need to tell me about it. If it doesn't, then the explanation comes off as delusional boasting. Either way it's a really bad idea.
Look, this subject is incredibly interesting and incredibly important. Richard Rhodes does an amazing job of covering this in his page-turner masterpiece, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Considering Ottaviani's other successes, I'm shocked to find this such an impenetrable book. The history is so rich and the people in it are such wonderful, maddening, brilliant characters too weird to be made up that the failure of this book is simply baffling.
Seriously, skip Fallout and read The Making of the Atomic Bomb. You won't regret it.
January 24, 2009
-- read for class
The story throughout Fallout is by Jim Ottaviani, who was a nuclear engineer and is currently a librarian. The story is split into four main sections, plus a prologue, epilogue, and three interludes. Sections follow the lifecycle of the atomic bomb – so for example, Birth is the store of how Szilard conceived of the initial concept of splitting neutrons and lobbied for the US Government to fund the research. In this sense, the scope is nicely wide – we so frequently only hear about the research done at Los Alamos, that it’s interesting to see Szilard drum up support, have the early research illustrated, and also to see the aftermath, most notably Oppenheimer’s trial in 1954.
The artwork is shared by roughly seven artists, plus a letterer, a lay-out artist, etc. Each artist is responsible for discrete sections: ie Work, Death, although sometimes sections are interspersed. For example, in the middle of Birth is an interpretation of a dream Szilard had, rendered by a different artist from that who drew Birth. The Interludes between sections are all by the same author.
There is a substantial notes section at the back of the book, which supplements the factual information throughout, notes alterations to timeline and characterization made for the sake of the story, and so on.
My primary criticism is that because there are so many artists who contributed, main characters frequently don’t look alike from one section to the next, which disrupts the continuity of the narrative and makes it more difficult to follow. Additionally, due in part to the notes section at the back, while I think this is a really neat concept for a graphic novel, it may not actually be the best format in which to tell the story.
The story throughout Fallout is by Jim Ottaviani, who was a nuclear engineer and is currently a librarian. The story is split into four main sections, plus a prologue, epilogue, and three interludes. Sections follow the lifecycle of the atomic bomb – so for example, Birth is the store of how Szilard conceived of the initial concept of splitting neutrons and lobbied for the US Government to fund the research. In this sense, the scope is nicely wide – we so frequently only hear about the research done at Los Alamos, that it’s interesting to see Szilard drum up support, have the early research illustrated, and also to see the aftermath, most notably Oppenheimer’s trial in 1954.
The artwork is shared by roughly seven artists, plus a letterer, a lay-out artist, etc. Each artist is responsible for discrete sections: ie Work, Death, although sometimes sections are interspersed. For example, in the middle of Birth is an interpretation of a dream Szilard had, rendered by a different artist from that who drew Birth. The Interludes between sections are all by the same author.
There is a substantial notes section at the back of the book, which supplements the factual information throughout, notes alterations to timeline and characterization made for the sake of the story, and so on.
My primary criticism is that because there are so many artists who contributed, main characters frequently don’t look alike from one section to the next, which disrupts the continuity of the narrative and makes it more difficult to follow. Additionally, due in part to the notes section at the back, while I think this is a really neat concept for a graphic novel, it may not actually be the best format in which to tell the story.
January 11, 2018
The atomic bomb, and the shadow it has cast upon our culture, is something that has lingered in society's cultural consciousness to the point that we have to make great video games like Fallout 4 in order to relieve some kind of psychological paranoia and panic. That's all a fancy way of saying that the thought of nuclear annihilation scares the crap out of everybody. What's fascinating then is observing writers and comics artists tackling the Manhattan Project, and looking at the imperfect men who made the original weapon of mass destruction.
This book was a good read, but honestly having read Jonathan Fetter-Vorm's graphic novel Trinity, which follows the creation of the Atom bomb while also going into the science, Fallout left me a little frustrated. There are passages that sometimes drag on and on, and while it is fascinating to observe the fall of Oppenheimer's government standing following the war, this book tended to lack the direction and focus I wanted. Johnston deserves credit for focusing purely upon the politics that went into the making of the first atom bomb, and I also do believe this book is worth the reader's time. Graphic novels and comics can do incredible things, and this book would be a great companion work to any history class that deals with the Manhattan Project and the rise of Anti-Communism following World War II. This book is a great example that comics can inform as well as entertain.
As a work of art however, this book suffers from some slow feet, and the need to include lengthy government memos alongside comics panels with no clear way to observe the reading direction.
This book was a good read, but honestly having read Jonathan Fetter-Vorm's graphic novel Trinity, which follows the creation of the Atom bomb while also going into the science, Fallout left me a little frustrated. There are passages that sometimes drag on and on, and while it is fascinating to observe the fall of Oppenheimer's government standing following the war, this book tended to lack the direction and focus I wanted. Johnston deserves credit for focusing purely upon the politics that went into the making of the first atom bomb, and I also do believe this book is worth the reader's time. Graphic novels and comics can do incredible things, and this book would be a great companion work to any history class that deals with the Manhattan Project and the rise of Anti-Communism following World War II. This book is a great example that comics can inform as well as entertain.
As a work of art however, this book suffers from some slow feet, and the need to include lengthy government memos alongside comics panels with no clear way to observe the reading direction.
August 5, 2015
i enjoyed this graphic novel,but would not recommend it to someone who knows nothing about the development of the atomic bomb. i don't know a lot,but have recently been doing some reading on the history of it. otherwise i would have been lost. but with that knowledge as a base,i think this is very good to get into more in depth on the politics surrounding its use.
March 26, 2025
imagine being tried as a communist for not wanting to murder millions of people…
united states government fails to astonish me
this felt like the inspiration to the Oppenheimer movie, long drawn out and with too much scientific and judicial mumbo jumbo
united states government fails to astonish me
this felt like the inspiration to the Oppenheimer movie, long drawn out and with too much scientific and judicial mumbo jumbo
May 7, 2012
I think the development of the atomic bomb is a fascinating story what with the immense amount of science and labor (mental and physical) that went into it. This graphic novel lays that story out and while it was interesting (especially after having just recently seen the movies Fat Man and Little Boy and The Beginning or The End) it felt like it didn't quite add up to a coherent whole.
I didn't mind the different styles of drawing in the different sections, but I was never sure what or who's story was being told. We get different slices of the bomb's creators and history from each section but then we have an Oppenheimer heavy ending that seems out of place with what came before. The development of the bomb, along with the increasing ethical and moral crises it engenders is thought provoking, but then we have this heavy witch hunt of Oppenheimer and it just doesn't gel together very well. I admit I skipped over a lot of the text blocks and panels at the end but that was because I had seen The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer on PBS's American Experience series, and was familiar with all that material. It's sad how Oppenheimer was treated but it's a bit tedious at the end after the relatively fast paced beginning and middle of the rest of the work.
Then comes the notes section, where the background info for a lot of the panels are explained in detail. This is a great section for the historical information, but more frustrating for me was the incredible amount of fudging there was in the who what when and where's. A lot (and I mean a lot) of the notes point out the author's changing who said what and in what instance for the sake of drama, and while I have no problem with artistic license... well I guess I do since it seems like most everything didn't really happen the way it is portrayed here. There is an upfront disclaimer about how the graphic novel is "not a work of history" but that it "isn't entirely fiction either." For the amount of research that went into this work I guess I would have liked it to say "Based on true events" on the cover, rather than the "not a work of history/not entirely fiction". At least then it'd be more clear that this is a fictionalized version of the story, through and through.
So, all in all, it's an interesting read for anyone who is interested in the subject, but I guess I'm more about wanting the real story rather than a fictionalized one.
I didn't mind the different styles of drawing in the different sections, but I was never sure what or who's story was being told. We get different slices of the bomb's creators and history from each section but then we have an Oppenheimer heavy ending that seems out of place with what came before. The development of the bomb, along with the increasing ethical and moral crises it engenders is thought provoking, but then we have this heavy witch hunt of Oppenheimer and it just doesn't gel together very well. I admit I skipped over a lot of the text blocks and panels at the end but that was because I had seen The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer on PBS's American Experience series, and was familiar with all that material. It's sad how Oppenheimer was treated but it's a bit tedious at the end after the relatively fast paced beginning and middle of the rest of the work.
Then comes the notes section, where the background info for a lot of the panels are explained in detail. This is a great section for the historical information, but more frustrating for me was the incredible amount of fudging there was in the who what when and where's. A lot (and I mean a lot) of the notes point out the author's changing who said what and in what instance for the sake of drama, and while I have no problem with artistic license... well I guess I do since it seems like most everything didn't really happen the way it is portrayed here. There is an upfront disclaimer about how the graphic novel is "not a work of history" but that it "isn't entirely fiction either." For the amount of research that went into this work I guess I would have liked it to say "Based on true events" on the cover, rather than the "not a work of history/not entirely fiction". At least then it'd be more clear that this is a fictionalized version of the story, through and through.
So, all in all, it's an interesting read for anyone who is interested in the subject, but I guess I'm more about wanting the real story rather than a fictionalized one.
May 31, 2017
More accurately a 3.5 star rating, but goodreads is still behind the rating times. Anyways, it was highly fascinating and can be very educational as far as the science of nuclear bombs goes. My first main issue is the story itself is left wanting, which as I read more graphic novels and histories increasingly becomes what I think is the most valuable aspect of using comics to spread academic information. It can be hard to follow what exactly is happening throughout the book, even though after some thought I can see what the authors were going for. That's a problem though. The ideal for this sort of storytelling is that the reader can dive in and learn while enjoying a story. This leads to my second main problem, which is the art. There were far too many artists working on this project which makes for a confusing aesthetic. Since understanding the way an artist is helping move the story along in a comic, changing the artist for nearly every chapter means changing the way the story is told. I LOVED the first chapter with the semi-realistic drawings and use of pictures. The Interludes were great too, and I like the idea of those sections containing a different artist's style. But every chapter having a new artist led to confusion as to who the characters were.
I still think it's an entertaining book, and especially worth the read for anyone interested in the science and history of the period, but I really went into it wanting more. Interestingly, I found myself starting Ottaviani's other work, T-Minus, with similar high hopes, only to be slightly disappointed for different reasons. I'm curious to see how other authors handle turning their research into comics since it's a relatively recent effort. Maybe it's just a field that needs more time to work out the kinks, or maybe I'm just reading the wrong titles because their content is focused on the subjects closest to my own interests.
I still think it's an entertaining book, and especially worth the read for anyone interested in the science and history of the period, but I really went into it wanting more. Interestingly, I found myself starting Ottaviani's other work, T-Minus, with similar high hopes, only to be slightly disappointed for different reasons. I'm curious to see how other authors handle turning their research into comics since it's a relatively recent effort. Maybe it's just a field that needs more time to work out the kinks, or maybe I'm just reading the wrong titles because their content is focused on the subjects closest to my own interests.
April 15, 2014
The book, “Fallout” talks about the history of the atomic bomb blandly and is written in the form of a graphic novel. The book, “Fallout” is bad because it confuses the reader of literature and of plot confusion. “Fallout” is shown as a science nonfiction book, only to throw readers unknowing nuclear facts that perhaps only a person with a doctorate may know of.
Although the book was meant to by scientifically informational, the information conveyed in the panels was very confusing to read, as there were jumps from page to page. Sometimes the reader cannot tell if the context is out of context or not. The dry literature subjected on the science of nuclear bombs have been quite boring to read, but can be understood by someone with smarts on nuclear engineering. “Fallout” can be quite interesting depending on the reader’s preferences. Such factors can include interest in nuclear science, nuclear engineering, or atomic bomb history.
The book could have incorporated more distinct visuals other than bland black and white. The book is attempting to not only at informing readers about the history of the atomic bomb, but also attempts to make the story more compelling, but fails. In the texts, the story contains endless paragraphs that can only bore the reader and the bland visuals the supposedly the graphic novel was supposed to entertain the reader with. The amount of effort put into the book can be praised, as well as the amount of detail. The con about the art is the blandness and dryness that the pictures convey onto the reader.
I recommend this book only if you are very interested in nuclear science and engineering but do not count on the book to give you entertainment on visuals.
Although the book was meant to by scientifically informational, the information conveyed in the panels was very confusing to read, as there were jumps from page to page. Sometimes the reader cannot tell if the context is out of context or not. The dry literature subjected on the science of nuclear bombs have been quite boring to read, but can be understood by someone with smarts on nuclear engineering. “Fallout” can be quite interesting depending on the reader’s preferences. Such factors can include interest in nuclear science, nuclear engineering, or atomic bomb history.
The book could have incorporated more distinct visuals other than bland black and white. The book is attempting to not only at informing readers about the history of the atomic bomb, but also attempts to make the story more compelling, but fails. In the texts, the story contains endless paragraphs that can only bore the reader and the bland visuals the supposedly the graphic novel was supposed to entertain the reader with. The amount of effort put into the book can be praised, as well as the amount of detail. The con about the art is the blandness and dryness that the pictures convey onto the reader.
I recommend this book only if you are very interested in nuclear science and engineering but do not count on the book to give you entertainment on visuals.
May 22, 2017
Fallout is a comic written by Ottoviani who has a masters degree in nuclear engineering himself. In this book he explains the course of developments that led to the realisation of nuclear fission and its power. The book starts with deep contemplations by Leo Szilard, a German scientist who flees Nazi Germany and meets up with Einstein in the US with a plan to end the war. One thing leads to another with folks all over the European continent wondering deeply about atomic particles - interestingly Lord Rutherford and Fermi start hunting for a chemical or element which is capable of releasing two neutrons and absorbing one to sustain reaction. The science is amazing and inspiring. The political science is even better. Here comes in Oppenheimer who is a perfect amalgamation of a scientist and a politician. He runs the Manhattan project along with the US military. This book does not deeply reflect on what scientists thought about the power they were unleashing and its implications on innocent people. End of the book shows feelings of regret. It is indeed a time of mixed feelings when the world saw one of the greatest sources of energy at the cost of horrible deaths of many innocent people. Fallout is a must read and will leave you with mixed feelings!
January 24, 2016
I so wanted to like this book more than I did, having read and thoroughly enjoyed other Ottaviani books but this one fell short for me and at times the narrative kept losing track of itself and I struggled to understand what or why I was reading within the timeline given. The actual lead up to and the making of the atomic bomb was quite muddled, with characters crossing over each other and the story jumping around a bit. The final third of the book was an in depth look at a hearing that Oppenheimer went through to determine whether he had passed sensitive material on to the Russians and whether he was involved with communists. This was fascinating and something I'd never heard of before but again, the actual story line was presented in a convoluted way and I ended up skim reading half of this section. Unfortunately, not an easy book to read.
October 24, 2012
I'm very interested in the Manhattan project but on the whole this was pretty boring.
While I can see that the politics is a valid part of the whole project it doesn't make for gripping comic material.
The first part is quite fascinating - seeing the inception of the whole push towards investigating the possibility of a bomb. The middle part which shows the development phase was quite well done as well, even if the science was not explained all that much.
The last part - the 'fallout' ie the hearing to determine whether Oppenheimer's security clearance should be denied - well that's just boring - a bunch of people sitting behind desks talking to each other. I mean the topic is of interest but it just drags on and on.
I'm not a big fan of the art styles used either.
While I can see that the politics is a valid part of the whole project it doesn't make for gripping comic material.
The first part is quite fascinating - seeing the inception of the whole push towards investigating the possibility of a bomb. The middle part which shows the development phase was quite well done as well, even if the science was not explained all that much.
The last part - the 'fallout' ie the hearing to determine whether Oppenheimer's security clearance should be denied - well that's just boring - a bunch of people sitting behind desks talking to each other. I mean the topic is of interest but it just drags on and on.
I'm not a big fan of the art styles used either.
August 24, 2013
Honestly, I kinda skimmed the second half of this one; it just really lost my interest, which is weird, because I find these people and the topic pretty fascinating in general. But it was hard to keep track of who was who with so many changes in artist, and the way the story is told just...isn't terribly compelling. The whole thing just feels clunky and awkward to me. I'm planning on giving Feynman a chance though, since it looks like there's only one illustrator for that one; maybe it will work out a little better for me.
November 25, 2018
Quite verbose for a comic book, however the added personal affects, letters, and explanations added a lot of political, personal, and scientific contexts I was not aware of previously. I didn't care for the work, as a whole, but I have rated it highly because I think it provided me with a brief, but expansive, view into the political and scientific climates during the birth of the Nuclear Age. I might check out other books in the series, though only if I have some background knowledge on the subject matter; I believe I would need to know something about the material to really engage with new interpretations of it in comic form.
August 17, 2010
True stories of atomic science, politics, academic rivalries, and the seeds of the cold war --- told with thought bubbles! It's not easy to make government hearings fascinating. Portrays the rise and fall of a brilliant scientist and executive. Oppenheimer was given a task to do that altered the outcome of WWII, and then was punished for achieving it. The panel examining him agreed that they had no data to consider him a threat, yet stripped him of his security clearance anyway.
September 19, 2012
Detailed look at some of what transpired during and after the making of the atomic bomb, as told through the perspectives of some of the key players. Ottaviani uses original documents as source material for much of the book, including the story of Oppenheimer's troubles with Communist witch hunts. Someone who isn't familiar with the Manhattan Project or the work (scientific as well as political) that preceded and followed it may be a bit lost though.
November 23, 2015
Less of the science of the bomb and much more of the politics of the Manhattan Project, it's scientists, and the subsequent government witch hunt of Oppenheimer. This book was much more dense than others on the same topic, but also by extension much more engaging and informative.
The interactions, lobbying and intricacies of this major epoch in U.S. history was fascinating, and well done in a graphic format.
The interactions, lobbying and intricacies of this major epoch in U.S. history was fascinating, and well done in a graphic format.
November 11, 2016
lush and dense for a graphic novel. the story follows the development of "the bomb" prior to WWII, as well as the manifestation of "the bomb" during WWII and Oppenheimer's trial for being accused as a communist. here we also see the tug-o-war between the military and scientists over weapon development and funding. each chapter is also draw in a different art style, further contributing to the rich quality of the graphic novel.
January 7, 2017
This graphic non-fiction book was difficult to understand because it was quite detailed and involved several characters.
A scene: President Truman gives Oppenheimer the Presidential Medal of Merit. Truman asks Opp. "Do you have something you want to say?" Oppenheimer replies "I feel....I have blood on my hands."
Truman shrugs it off, "Oh. Well. Nevermind, it will all come out in the wash."
A scene: President Truman gives Oppenheimer the Presidential Medal of Merit. Truman asks Opp. "Do you have something you want to say?" Oppenheimer replies "I feel....I have blood on my hands."
Truman shrugs it off, "Oh. Well. Nevermind, it will all come out in the wash."
April 3, 2018
Ottaviani's written good stuff, but I sometimes feel like he expects me to know more than I do, and I ran into that with this one. Changing artists every chapter also makes it hard to keep track of characters, since their appearance changed. When it gets to Oppenheimer's inquisition, I pretty much gave up. And the science is way over my head. (I also saw several wedding photographers and didn't sleep much this week, so maybe I was just tired.)
January 16, 2016
Really interesting subject, execution leaves a bit to be desired. It could have been greatly improved with documentary-style overarching narration. Instead it tries to relay all the intricacies and social politics through confusing dramatic scenes with a vast array of unexplored historical characters.
April 26, 2016
This graphic novel focuses specifically on the influence of Szilard and Oppenheimer in the development of the atomic bomb. There's definitely some big things that get left out (which made it a bit confusing to follow at times), but I did find really insightful how poorly politics an science worked together in these events.
August 3, 2016
I wanted to like this, and I've enjoyed other books by Ottaviani. But this is a pretty terrible graphic novel. Poorly structured, confusingly written, the only reason I understood the plot line at all is because of scientific and historical knowledge I brought to the reading myself. This book accomplishes nothing that Rhodes doesn't accomplish more engagingly in The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
August 28, 2011
For a graphic novel about the atomic bomb, there's surprisingly little action here. The artist's focus is more on the grave philosophical questions that came with engineering a weapon of mass destruction.
July 29, 2012
Rather uneven and longwinded. Truly the story of both Szilard and Oppenheimer pre and post the bomb is intriguing, but the many artists illustrating the story and their very different styles tend to obscure the angle and message.
April 10, 2013
It was artistically interesting, but the story and writing weren't enjoyable and there were a lot of blocks of text which detracted from the reading experience. The content was also mostly overlapping with all of the other historical fiction about the atomic bomb.
March 10, 2014
Interesting subject, but the artwork is inconsistent and simply bad in most places. This inconsistency makes it hard to tell characters apart visually. The book becomes pretty dull at the end with big columns of text which are not suited to the graphic novel form.
March 4, 2016
A graphic novel about the Manhattan Project, shows history of building of hydrogen bomb and atomic bomb. physicists, Cold War, history of science, WWII, nuclear history. Albert Einstein makes an appearance.
April 14, 2016
I wanted to like this book, but I couldn't follow it. To me, it seemed like you needed to know a lot about the atomic bomb story to grasp this. Even the notes weren't helpful. I gave up halfway through.
August 14, 2011
A graphic novel isn't my usual format, and I was fairly familiar with all the material, but still an interesting presentation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews