Scan barcode
A review by joyfulme
Code Girls: The True Story of the American Women Who Secretly Broke Codes in World War II by Liza Mundy
2.0
“It was not easy being a smart girl in the 1940s. People thought you were annoying.”
The length and topic of this book is pretty daunting for 3rd or 4th graders, even if it is a young reader’s adaptation; dumbing down the writing doesn’t change this. After reading half of this edited version, my thoughts were concentrated on the decline in our country’s literacy. The text often reads as if the author is talking down to young children, and then, when the more specialized subject matter picks up, such as the vocabulary and explanations of the cryptoanalysis processes, the condescending tone cuts out and the writing seems to get clearer and less patronizing. Informal colloquialisms (such as “divvy up”) or lazy diction (the Japanese losses “were bad”) are followed by technical explanations on the enciphering of the Japanese Fleet codes. The writing style is so polarized that I often get the feeling that this was written by two authors. I imagine that the more engaging technical passages were the parts less butchered by the incompetent editor.
There is also an annoying prejudice against the norms of the 1940s.
“Women were brought into the workforce to free up men for military service. As a result, men who had been doing office work were able to ship out to work. So women were welcome, but also resented.”
What kind of logic is that?
It’s difficult to avoid prejudices in nonfiction writing but this author’s attempt to hide her feminist bullying fails. Other frequent logical fallacies include generalizations, over simplifications, and judging the past by modern sensibilities. Opposition to women in the military is represented by a singular caricatured voice, instead of presenting multiple points of view and legitimate concerns. According to the cited reports, the self-proclaimed primary motivation for a large number of women to join the Navy was the fashionable uniform. And female military recruits had low graduation rates (less than 50%) because many would quit to start families. The author paints silly images of them marching in heels and then falling backwards on their bottoms. Then the author complains that others saw these female recruits as a risk, and that their pay was not as high as the men. Can we be honest enough to admit that there is more to this particular problem of equality than men trying to keep women down? The women who did stick around and worked hard to accomplish great feats were amazing and their coworkers, male and female, acknowledged this.
The information in this book would add to conversations on women’s rights struggles, World War 2 intel and strategy, and US Military history. (Or perhaps cancel culture, hidden agendas, and the decline of American literacy?) I’m just not sure that I want my kids to use it as a secondary source on account of the writing being so inconsistent, even if we were to ignore the bias. I am willing to try the original text to see if it might be better written.
2 stars for the adaptation.
Might recommend for 10 year olds recognizing that there are parts that could go over their heads
The length and topic of this book is pretty daunting for 3rd or 4th graders, even if it is a young reader’s adaptation; dumbing down the writing doesn’t change this. After reading half of this edited version, my thoughts were concentrated on the decline in our country’s literacy. The text often reads as if the author is talking down to young children, and then, when the more specialized subject matter picks up, such as the vocabulary and explanations of the cryptoanalysis processes, the condescending tone cuts out and the writing seems to get clearer and less patronizing. Informal colloquialisms (such as “divvy up”) or lazy diction (the Japanese losses “were bad”) are followed by technical explanations on the enciphering of the Japanese Fleet codes. The writing style is so polarized that I often get the feeling that this was written by two authors. I imagine that the more engaging technical passages were the parts less butchered by the incompetent editor.
There is also an annoying prejudice against the norms of the 1940s.
“Women were brought into the workforce to free up men for military service. As a result, men who had been doing office work were able to ship out to work. So women were welcome, but also resented.”
What kind of logic is that?
It’s difficult to avoid prejudices in nonfiction writing but this author’s attempt to hide her feminist bullying fails. Other frequent logical fallacies include generalizations, over simplifications, and judging the past by modern sensibilities. Opposition to women in the military is represented by a singular caricatured voice, instead of presenting multiple points of view and legitimate concerns. According to the cited reports, the self-proclaimed primary motivation for a large number of women to join the Navy was the fashionable uniform. And female military recruits had low graduation rates (less than 50%) because many would quit to start families. The author paints silly images of them marching in heels and then falling backwards on their bottoms. Then the author complains that others saw these female recruits as a risk, and that their pay was not as high as the men. Can we be honest enough to admit that there is more to this particular problem of equality than men trying to keep women down? The women who did stick around and worked hard to accomplish great feats were amazing and their coworkers, male and female, acknowledged this.
The information in this book would add to conversations on women’s rights struggles, World War 2 intel and strategy, and US Military history. (Or perhaps cancel culture, hidden agendas, and the decline of American literacy?) I’m just not sure that I want my kids to use it as a secondary source on account of the writing being so inconsistent, even if we were to ignore the bias. I am willing to try the original text to see if it might be better written.
2 stars for the adaptation.
Might recommend for 10 year olds recognizing that there are parts that could go over their heads