What do you think?
Rate this book
Division Street: America
Division Street, Studs Terkel’s first book of oral history, established his reputation as America’s foremost oral historian and as “one of those rare thinkers who is actually willing to go out and talk to the incredible people of this country” (in the words of Tom Wolfe).
Viewing the inhabitants of a single city, Chicago, as a microcosm of the nation at large, Division Street chronicles the thoughts and feelings of some seventy people from widely varying backgrounds in terms of class, race, and personal history. From a mother and son who migrated from Appalachia to a Native American boilerman, from a streetwise ex–gang leader to a liberal police officer, from the poorest African Americans to the richest socialites, these unique and often intimate first-person accounts form a multifaceted collage that defies any simple stereotype of America.
As Terkel himself put it: “I was on the prowl for a cross–section of urban thought, using no one method or technique. . . I guess I was seeking some balance in the wildlife of the city as Rachel Carson sought it in nature. Revealing aspects of people’s lives that are normally invisible to most of us, Division Street is a fascinating survey of a city, and a society, at a pivotal moment of the twentieth century.
Viewing the inhabitants of a single city, Chicago, as a microcosm of the nation at large, Division Street chronicles the thoughts and feelings of some seventy people from widely varying backgrounds in terms of class, race, and personal history. From a mother and son who migrated from Appalachia to a Native American boilerman, from a streetwise ex–gang leader to a liberal police officer, from the poorest African Americans to the richest socialites, these unique and often intimate first-person accounts form a multifaceted collage that defies any simple stereotype of America.
As Terkel himself put it: “I was on the prowl for a cross–section of urban thought, using no one method or technique. . . I guess I was seeking some balance in the wildlife of the city as Rachel Carson sought it in nature. Revealing aspects of people’s lives that are normally invisible to most of us, Division Street is a fascinating survey of a city, and a society, at a pivotal moment of the twentieth century.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
52 people are currently reading
1931 people want to read
About the author
Studs Terkel
76 books412 followersLouis "Studs" Terkel was an American author, historian, actor, and broadcaster. He received the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1985 for "The Good War", and is best remembered for his oral histories of common Americans, and for hosting a long-running radio show in Chicago.
Terkel was acclaimed for his efforts to preserve American oral history. His 1985 book "The Good War: An Oral History of World War Two", which detailed ordinary peoples' accounts of the country's involvement in World War II, won the Pulitzer Prize. For "Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression", Terkel assembled recollections of the Great Depression that spanned the socioeconomic spectrum, from Okies, through prison inmates, to the wealthy. His 1974 book, "Working" also was highly acclaimed. In 1995, he received the Chicago History Museum "Making History Award" for Distinction in Journalism and Communications. In 1997, Terkel was elected a member of The American Academy of Arts and Letters. Two years later, he received the George Polk Career Award in 1999.
Terkel was acclaimed for his efforts to preserve American oral history. His 1985 book "The Good War: An Oral History of World War Two", which detailed ordinary peoples' accounts of the country's involvement in World War II, won the Pulitzer Prize. For "Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression", Terkel assembled recollections of the Great Depression that spanned the socioeconomic spectrum, from Okies, through prison inmates, to the wealthy. His 1974 book, "Working" also was highly acclaimed. In 1995, he received the Chicago History Museum "Making History Award" for Distinction in Journalism and Communications. In 1997, Terkel was elected a member of The American Academy of Arts and Letters. Two years later, he received the George Polk Career Award in 1999.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
July 10, 2014
The battered original paperback. I’ve dutifully moved it from college dorm rooms to various apartments. It was one of those books I “should” read, and for that reason, almost resented it and nearly didn’t. But when I opened Studs’ biographic Talking to Myself almost by chance, and got sucked in, I decided to finally come around to Division Street. How strange, then, it was to not particularly enjoy it, or even finish it. Blasphemous, I realize, given that the interview of the everyman is the trademark of Terkel. But the numerous interviews feel relentless. The inherent lack of continuity give a feeling akin to reading the encyclopedia. Fascinating entries to be sure, but not enjoyable to read in sequence in a single sitting.
February 22, 2011
This book is a must read for anyone interested in social history and, of course, for Chicagoans. This is a book of amazing conservations with all sorts of people from throughout Chicago about civil rights, Vietnam, urban renewal, poverty, religion, the future, youth, work, politics, and the list goes on. Terkel somehow allowed and invited these people to truly open up about themselves and the world they live in. This is a pretty long book and I often had to put it down between conservations to give myself time to think about it all. The people are both of their time and totally timeless. Thought-provoking. This one sticks with me below the surface. I find myself wondering what happened to these people afterwards...
April 15, 2020
In 1967 Studs Terkel published this series of interviews of Chicago residents. It's an interesting insight into people's thoughts on progress, racism, the Vietnam War, ethnic diversity, and sexism, to name a few. I am a fan of Terkel, and enjoyed this work. Some of the comments were repetitive, and some weren't surprising. In this era of revisionist history, it was refreshing to get an accurate glimpse into the lives and thoughts of people in that city. 3 1/2 stars.
July 26, 2013
I appreciated the historical narratives. Though these interviews were done in the 1960s, they voice what still resonates within this City, within ourselves – different picture, same landscape.
As a native Chicagoan while reading through the interviews, I had feelings of being enthused, dismayed, disappointed, proud. I can relay more adjectives, but you get the picture.
As a native Chicagoan while reading through the interviews, I had feelings of being enthused, dismayed, disappointed, proud. I can relay more adjectives, but you get the picture.
August 11, 2025
As a Chicagoan for oh so many years now it was so fascinating to learn how the issues Chicago faces today are nearly identical to the ones given light by the voices Studs raised some sixty years ago. I really appreciated how he highlighted a cross section of Chicagoans at the time and though he gave context to their individual stories it seems he did little to no editing. Fascinating read and I highly recommend it to any and all former or current Second Citizens.
December 1, 2019
Studs Terkel’s first oral history, of his hometown, Chicago. A fascinating book of interviews with ordinary people of all walks of life, races, religions, classes and backgrounds. His love of people shines through, as does his capability as an interviewer: you feel like you’re in the room with him as his talking to them about Vietnam, Civil Rights, the Bomb, their everyday lives. Written at a time of turmoil (1967), this book is still incredibly relevant today, and is well worth your time.
January 15, 2024
I would rather read the thoughts and fears of 70 chicagoans in the 1960s than pretty much any philosopher.
“I don’t cry for sorrow, that I can swallow and hold. But for real joy, I can cry.”
“I don’t cry for sorrow, that I can swallow and hold. But for real joy, I can cry.”
May 10, 2014
A total mixed bag for me.
First, I grew up listening to Studs on WFMT and this was a forceful reminder of why the man was such an institution in my home city. He always captured the voice and essence of My Chicago better than anyone else ever did. Between his casual interview style and apparent willingness to listen to anyone, for as long as it took for them to say their piece, he brought out people's innermost thoughts and worries and often got them to think things through on air. I imagine with an open-ended schedule and a less practiced crowd of subjects the Studs interview experience would have brought out amazing results. But...
Second, on this read I am more prone to notice the editorial decisions and framing that went into the construction of this book. I grew up surrounded by the people in this book, and I can tell you that not one thing they say in the book is "wrong" or out of step with the people that I knew, but none of them ever spoke so consistently or extensively about race, Vietnam, or the threat of the bomb because those were hot-button topics. What we aren't seeing in the book is what these people would have wanted to talk about around the kitchen table, or in a bar, or with anyone with whom they had not first already come to some understanding or agreement. These people are Midwesterners, we don't like to offend, we don't like to disagree, we don't like to make our passions other people's concerns. What we are not seeing in this book is what brought nearly everyone interviewed to talk so candidly about race and Civil Rights (especially when he interviews Black subjects), how Studs got them to that point. But...
Third, what is said about "the negro" throughout this book is absolutely dead on for this time and place. Also, because concern with the race question was uppermost on everyone's mind at the time it is a valid subject for a book, and the part that rings most true is how, in Chicago among the White residents, the race question was almost entirely framed around property values. This is a neat rhetorical trick, where people who may hold prejudices can appear to be equality minded and vocally sympathetic to Civil Rights, but can you blame a man for being against the Negro when his HOME is under threat of devaluation? It's not the Black man that is the problem, it's that some Blacks have bad habits that ensure that no one with money enough to live elsewhere will live near a Negro (society is to blame). I cannot count how often that elegant piece of sophistry is trotted out, and by reporting this bit of common wisdom so consistently and often Studs reveals it for the lie that it is. Not one of those men will commit to living with Blacks on an equal basis, despite their protests. So despite some editorial work to make it so, Division Street is a valuable document recording the insanity, hypocrisy, fear, anger, and paternalism pervading race relations in the mid-1960s.
Call me slow, but it was only during this reading that it finally dawned on me why the book is named Division Street. Maybe it was because I first read this book back in the Cold War and the repeating themes of race and class and radioactive death were pretty much my obsessions too and so the natural subjects of every book. This time though, I picked up on how Studs was shading the inhabitants of Chicago into one group or another; and of course Studs (being the very embodiment of egalitarianism) would make division the theme of his portrait of his beloved city.
A vibrant and faithful --yet selective-- portrait of a city tearing itself to pieces with such dedicated energy that it still hasn't fully recovered fifty years later.
First, I grew up listening to Studs on WFMT and this was a forceful reminder of why the man was such an institution in my home city. He always captured the voice and essence of My Chicago better than anyone else ever did. Between his casual interview style and apparent willingness to listen to anyone, for as long as it took for them to say their piece, he brought out people's innermost thoughts and worries and often got them to think things through on air. I imagine with an open-ended schedule and a less practiced crowd of subjects the Studs interview experience would have brought out amazing results. But...
Second, on this read I am more prone to notice the editorial decisions and framing that went into the construction of this book. I grew up surrounded by the people in this book, and I can tell you that not one thing they say in the book is "wrong" or out of step with the people that I knew, but none of them ever spoke so consistently or extensively about race, Vietnam, or the threat of the bomb because those were hot-button topics. What we aren't seeing in the book is what these people would have wanted to talk about around the kitchen table, or in a bar, or with anyone with whom they had not first already come to some understanding or agreement. These people are Midwesterners, we don't like to offend, we don't like to disagree, we don't like to make our passions other people's concerns. What we are not seeing in this book is what brought nearly everyone interviewed to talk so candidly about race and Civil Rights (especially when he interviews Black subjects), how Studs got them to that point. But...
Third, what is said about "the negro" throughout this book is absolutely dead on for this time and place. Also, because concern with the race question was uppermost on everyone's mind at the time it is a valid subject for a book, and the part that rings most true is how, in Chicago among the White residents, the race question was almost entirely framed around property values. This is a neat rhetorical trick, where people who may hold prejudices can appear to be equality minded and vocally sympathetic to Civil Rights, but can you blame a man for being against the Negro when his HOME is under threat of devaluation? It's not the Black man that is the problem, it's that some Blacks have bad habits that ensure that no one with money enough to live elsewhere will live near a Negro (society is to blame). I cannot count how often that elegant piece of sophistry is trotted out, and by reporting this bit of common wisdom so consistently and often Studs reveals it for the lie that it is. Not one of those men will commit to living with Blacks on an equal basis, despite their protests. So despite some editorial work to make it so, Division Street is a valuable document recording the insanity, hypocrisy, fear, anger, and paternalism pervading race relations in the mid-1960s.
Call me slow, but it was only during this reading that it finally dawned on me why the book is named Division Street. Maybe it was because I first read this book back in the Cold War and the repeating themes of race and class and radioactive death were pretty much my obsessions too and so the natural subjects of every book. This time though, I picked up on how Studs was shading the inhabitants of Chicago into one group or another; and of course Studs (being the very embodiment of egalitarianism) would make division the theme of his portrait of his beloved city.
A vibrant and faithful --yet selective-- portrait of a city tearing itself to pieces with such dedicated energy that it still hasn't fully recovered fifty years later.
January 4, 2010
This book was somewhat of a revelation to me. The story of a time and place - Chicago in the early 60's- as told by people who actually lived then and there. It is not a dry, academic analysis of the famous and infamous decade of the 60's, but an intimate and personal look at the lives and thoughts and fears and hopes of the people who were there amidst the tumult of the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, the Bomb, and the cultural revolution. It was really fascinating to me, especially some of the insights that Terkel was able to unveil. My favorite was the prediction about the state of the city - "I think in Chicago it's going to the very poor and the very wealthy, from the way it's going now. You put all these big buildings along the North Shore and you the put the wealthy people in. And your middle class or upper middle class are all moving out to the suburbs, but the poorer classes can't afford it so they're staying here. You're gonna have the two extremes eventually" (Harriet Behrens, p. 25).
So, I highly recommend this book, especially for any denizens of Chicago.
ps. Megan, who is your grandmother?
So, I highly recommend this book, especially for any denizens of Chicago.
ps. Megan, who is your grandmother?
October 9, 2009
Should be required reading for all Chicagoans. Very intesting slice of life personal histories from across Chicago taken duing the 70s. Great insights and perspectives from many different angles. The introduction by Studs Terkel is very well written.
This is the only book by Studs Terkel that I have read and given the nature of the book (interviews with people from across Chicago) it does not include a lot of his writing. However, the introduction, which Studs wote, shows why he is such an honored storyteller. His writing is fresh and colloquial and very easy to enjoy.
This is the only book by Studs Terkel that I have read and given the nature of the book (interviews with people from across Chicago) it does not include a lot of his writing. However, the introduction, which Studs wote, shows why he is such an honored storyteller. His writing is fresh and colloquial and very easy to enjoy.
December 22, 2009
Well, it's Studs Terkel, so this book is simply grand. What I most appreciated about this title are the unexpected cultural and historical insights into subjects like Hull House, Viola Liuzzo, and Marshalltown, Iowa (where my folks live). That said, I do wish I could here the interview tapes; Terkel and his subjects have more resonance when you can hear their inflection, conversation, and laughter.
November 14, 2014
Not one of Terkel's best books. Published in 1967, the topics that appear repeatedly in this oral history are race relations between black and white, Vietnam, and redevelopment of Chicago neighborhoods. All of these issues are two generations old and are not fresh or even pertinent. Read as sociology and history of a moment in time long gone.
April 19, 2021
Unlike other books where I typically only draw summaries in my review - Terkel's books are different. I have read several of his books by now, and each one brings me something new, yet I also learn something old -
How should I describe Terkel's first book? It's authentically Terkel throughout, very original, refreshing, yet also old and mundane (in a good way):
Old and mundane because I easily can tell that each generations of human are boringly similar: as they age, they reminiscent of the good old days: an old woman wondering why would Chicago rebuilt: "can't we have things the way they were?" Or - an old man believing that the old way of life would be better: "back in the days, people treat each other nicer, jobs like firefighters were respected..."
Old and mundane because today's youth are also like yesterdays. "I don't read the news, I can't do anything about it so why bother?", Or - "I know it's selfish to say, but I really only care about myself... making sure I am happy"...
Old and mundane because today's theme are occurring just like yesterday's: the same theme, just different fools: "I think the news are the problem... it brings people fear" said one guy. Or "I don't think humans will ever get rid of wars... the world would be too boring"...
"History doesn't repeat, it rhymes". "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Terkel's book, although written many decades ago, are comically up to date. When I read his other book "Hard Times" few years ago, would anyone thought today, as we just went through a full year of pandemic, all the "Hard Times" themes are reoccurring? The homeless? The hungry? The needy? Even in this book, the reoccurring theme of the Great Depression looms...
The beauty of Terkel's works are, yes - maybe there are editorials, there are narratives - but at the end is you, the reader, gets to decide and guess what the editorials and narratives are. Primary sources - or the seemingly appearance of primary sources - are like artworks. They have the beauty of letting viewer to interpret the work.
How should I describe Terkel's first book? It's authentically Terkel throughout, very original, refreshing, yet also old and mundane (in a good way):
Old and mundane because I easily can tell that each generations of human are boringly similar: as they age, they reminiscent of the good old days: an old woman wondering why would Chicago rebuilt: "can't we have things the way they were?" Or - an old man believing that the old way of life would be better: "back in the days, people treat each other nicer, jobs like firefighters were respected..."
Old and mundane because today's youth are also like yesterdays. "I don't read the news, I can't do anything about it so why bother?", Or - "I know it's selfish to say, but I really only care about myself... making sure I am happy"...
Old and mundane because today's theme are occurring just like yesterday's: the same theme, just different fools: "I think the news are the problem... it brings people fear" said one guy. Or "I don't think humans will ever get rid of wars... the world would be too boring"...
"History doesn't repeat, it rhymes". "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Terkel's book, although written many decades ago, are comically up to date. When I read his other book "Hard Times" few years ago, would anyone thought today, as we just went through a full year of pandemic, all the "Hard Times" themes are reoccurring? The homeless? The hungry? The needy? Even in this book, the reoccurring theme of the Great Depression looms...
The beauty of Terkel's works are, yes - maybe there are editorials, there are narratives - but at the end is you, the reader, gets to decide and guess what the editorials and narratives are. Primary sources - or the seemingly appearance of primary sources - are like artworks. They have the beauty of letting viewer to interpret the work.
January 10, 2025
Here are two contradictory quotes about the past: “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there,” L. P. Hartley; and “The past is never dead. It’s not even past,” William Faulkner. Studs Terkel’s study, “Division Street, America,” illustrates the truth of both of these quotes; the book consists of a large number of interviews with a broad swath of inhabitants of Chicago, Illinois, in 1965. I am reading it in 2025, 60 years later, and it is indeed both a “foreign country” and just the same as today. The immediate personal concerns of the interviewees are the same - love, family, work, illness, money, education; the broader concerns - race relations, sex roles, the war (in Vietnam), the Bomb (atomic or nuclear) - are also just as contemporary if you speak to people in 2025 (albeit different wars and bombs). Differences also abound, notably racial issues which are somewhat better now than tney were then (although not as much changed as one might have hoped after 60 years); in addition, the racist people in 1965 are far more likely to be explicit in their racism than they likely would be now. Attitudes toward women have changed also, in the sense that there is more agreement that women can and should be educated and in the workforce (at least generally speaking, there are exceptions), but the ongoing work of women in the household is just the same and the idea of a female President was just as unthinkable then as now (witness 2016 and 2024). The book is being reissued now because a podcast based on it is planned; the reason doesn’t matter as much as the fact that it is available, and is well worth reading. I find it best to read in chunks rather than straight through, but either way the interviewees are varied and interesting and, indeed, just like you and me. Recommended. I received an ARC of this book through LibraryThing’s Early Reviewer program.
September 29, 2020
"Division Street: America" isn't the first title that would pop into most people's minds when they think of Terkel, but I think it should be. I'll admit, I'm totally biased being in Chicago, but maybe that's the best way to read this book.
There is a lot of upheaval and suffering throughout the city due partly to the constantly changing demographics of the neighborhoods, and many of the ethnic pockets and pyschological ghettoes that Terkel talked to people in during 1967 were in the middle of those changes. From the near north area, tight in the protective grip of Mayor Daley to the old Eastern European neighborhoods of the north and west sides which would soon become almost purely Puerto Rican, Cuban and Mexican.
You can really see firsthand, how stupid, how intelligent, how altruistic and how mean people can be in a big city. That's the best part of this whole book: you're left at every page feeling that something monumental is taking place in urban America while the interviews are happening. Civil rights, white flight, Latin immigration, the decline of the manual labor factory job, Viet Nam, etc.
Reading this in 1967 must have been interesting, but knowing what we know about Chicago today and how it's still in a state of flux (and maybe always will be) is really a reason to go back. The problems, the people and the strange mix still exists throughout Division Street today; but thanks to Terkel, we have a little hindsight.
There is a lot of upheaval and suffering throughout the city due partly to the constantly changing demographics of the neighborhoods, and many of the ethnic pockets and pyschological ghettoes that Terkel talked to people in during 1967 were in the middle of those changes. From the near north area, tight in the protective grip of Mayor Daley to the old Eastern European neighborhoods of the north and west sides which would soon become almost purely Puerto Rican, Cuban and Mexican.
You can really see firsthand, how stupid, how intelligent, how altruistic and how mean people can be in a big city. That's the best part of this whole book: you're left at every page feeling that something monumental is taking place in urban America while the interviews are happening. Civil rights, white flight, Latin immigration, the decline of the manual labor factory job, Viet Nam, etc.
Reading this in 1967 must have been interesting, but knowing what we know about Chicago today and how it's still in a state of flux (and maybe always will be) is really a reason to go back. The problems, the people and the strange mix still exists throughout Division Street today; but thanks to Terkel, we have a little hindsight.
July 22, 2019
I originally started reading Division Street: America to learn more about Chicago. I don't think I really learned all that much about Chicago, but I did learn a lot about how ordinary Americans viewed the world in the 1960's. Since the book consists of a collection of short interviews, it wasn't really "written" by Studs Terkel, but he displays his talent for getting people to engage and talk about what matters to them. The interviews are selected to give a very wide cross-section of society, which can make for frustrating reading at times when the people being interviewed don't quite share the same worldview as you. At the same time, it helps put things in perspective - it's a good reminder that the people you disagree with are people too, and they have their reasons for thinking the way they do.
Some of the interviews were a little too short to have that much substance, and it didn't seem like there was much in the way of intentional organization to the interviews that were chosen, although that might have been in order to keep things more objective.
Some of the interviews were a little too short to have that much substance, and it didn't seem like there was much in the way of intentional organization to the interviews that were chosen, although that might have been in order to keep things more objective.
November 29, 2023
Terkel’s staple work - Division Street America, empowers ‘working class’ voices by simply interviewing them. The true perspectives in the 60s highly resonate with the modern reader. This left me wondering about our relationship to the ‘capitalist system’ and if we’re destined to have an ambivalent relationship of both enjoying and despising the system or if we will ever pull out of the infinite loop. Give time to digest, though - can’t skim a non-fiction piece like this.
January 30, 2025
I received this as a gift from a LibraryThing giveaway. Studs Terkel is a remarkable author and I'm delighted that this will be available again. Unfortunately the copy I received was incomplete and very challenging to read. The introductory material was very informative about how he went about this project. I'd love to know more about what happened to these folks. The few that I was able to read were fascinating.
November 18, 2025
A collection of 71 transcripts from hundreds of interviews conducted by Chicago reporter Studs Terkel in the days of the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and the looming threats of automation and nuclear destruction.
It’s interesting how many of the views expressed by the noncelebrated people Terkel encountered endure to this day. You get the zeitgeist in the first 50-100 pages, but the interviews keep coming for 300+ more.
It’s interesting how many of the views expressed by the noncelebrated people Terkel encountered endure to this day. You get the zeitgeist in the first 50-100 pages, but the interviews keep coming for 300+ more.
July 12, 2025
was recommended as a must read for Chicago lovers.
I didn't realize it was a series of interviews when I got it.
was a bit disappointed. but the more I read the more I enjoyed it. it encapsulates Chicago.... in a certain time. people from all walks of life. age, race, sex, economical status....
One city. Millions of stories.
I didn't realize it was a series of interviews when I got it.
was a bit disappointed. but the more I read the more I enjoyed it. it encapsulates Chicago.... in a certain time. people from all walks of life. age, race, sex, economical status....
One city. Millions of stories.
August 19, 2025
As a fan of Studs, this was on my reading list for a while. This book, similar to many of Terkel's works, consists of oral histories from ordinary and extraordinary people. Focusing on his hometown of Chicago, it's amazing to see the different people and perspectives just in that one city. It's evident that these interviews also reflect the wider American experience as well.
Worth a read.
Worth a read.
December 12, 2018
Quite good collection of interviews in the tried and true Studs Terkel style. I think the folks in this one are slightly less gripping than in Working, or Hard Times, but it's still excellent and should be read by everyone.
January 4, 2020
Phenomenal! It's a must-read for folx interested in social theory, Chicago history, or those simply wanting to better understand people. It's amazing (and sometimes disheartening) to find that topics relevant in the 1960s are still relevant to today. I can't wait to read more from Studs Terkel!
June 28, 2020
A reminder that everyone has a story and a perspective, no matter how insignificant. I can't believe how much he was able to pull out of people with seemingly so few questions. And apt for the times... a lot of the racial commentary sounds exactly the same as today, across the spectrum.
June 24, 2025
An older book, from the 60s but still VERY insightful and real. Interviews with a diverse group of persons. Worth everyone reading to help us understand where others' beliefs and thoughts and dreams and actions are coming from.
August 19, 2025
Very interesting way to connect with the past and realize that many of the same struggles, both internally and externally, were plaguing America all those years ago. Also a great way to learn a bit more about the history of some of the Chicago neighborhoods.
September 23, 2017
A Terkel classic.
September 5, 2019
Great slice of life, amazing how much people really don’t change
November 13, 2019
Absolutely worth the read. Studs is a master storyteller. If you don’t like this book, you don’t like people.
October 19, 2021
Captures voices in a pretty stunning way
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews