Analysis
The influenza pandemic of 1918-19, like any historical event of such magnitude, is made up of many complex layers and produced innumerable effects and consequences. In The Great Influenza, published in 2004, John M. Barry focuses on specific individuals and aspects of the pandemic.
First, Barry focuses on the American experience of the virus. While he mentions the impact of the virus around the world, as well as the work of international scientists, he primarily explores the pandemic’s impact on the United States.
Secondly, Barry focuses his narrative on leaders. In the afterword, he writes: “I wanted to explore how individuals who had at least some power to deal with this challenge reacted.” Indeed, most of the book is devoted to tracing the actions of scientists and politicians—and the effects of their actions in the public sphere.
While Barry includes testimonies of ordinary survivors to help paint a picture of the virus’s impact on society, the primary figures who run throughout the book are key medical scientists and important political and military figures. These figures become familiar to the audience and constitute the common threads that run throughout a book that, by its nature, includes dozens of minor characters. For example, the book begins and ends with Paul Lewis. In the prologue, the book discusses Lewis’s first encounters with influenza in Philadelphia, and the final chapter ends with a reflection on Lewis’s approach to science and his tragic death.
Thirdly, Barry focuses on specific case studies to illustrate broader realities. For example, to describe the impact of influenza in army bases, Barry chooses to focus on Camp Grant, an army facility that was “typical” in its experience of the virus. Using making an example of Camp Grant, which was neither the most nor the least affected, Barry can delve into details that engage his audience and also demonstrate what happened in army bases around the country. Repeatedly, Barry shifts from a broad perspective—informed by statistics, dates, and numbers—to a more focused perspective. In this way, he ties these facts to the specific experiences of real people.
The entire book, in fact, was originally meant to be a specific case study to explore broader social questions. Namely, Barry wanted to examine the 1918-19 pandemic in order to see “how American society reacted to an immense challenge,” how people in leadership reacted and the impact they had on society, and to recognize what lessons might be applicable today. Throughout the book, these broader questions and themes run alongside the specific narrative of the pandemic.
Barry also uses careful formal structuring to keep his readers oriented. The book itself is divided into ten different parts, and the title of each part reflects its content. At different points, Barry directly informs his audience of the narrative path he is taking. For example, before tracing the outbreak of the virus from Haskell County, Kansas, to the rest of the world, Barry stops and takes a detour. He explicitly informs his audience of this, writing:
Regardless of where [the virus] began, to understand what happened next, one must first understand viruses and the concept of the mutant swarm.
After this signal, Barry launches into two full chapters detailing what viruses are, how they work, and how they interact with the human immune system. At the very beginning of the book, Barry is also clear about the timeline of his narrative. He begins by introducing the 1918-19 pandemic but then explains to the audience that, in order to understand the story of the pandemic, it is first necessary to stop and review the history of American...
(This entire section contains 1063 words.)
Unlock this Study Guide Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
medicine.
When Barry first began writing The Great Influenza in 1997, he was interested in the underlying truths about society and leadership that he might glean from his study of the historical pandemic. In the 2018 afterword, he writes that “events have overtaken this book.” Since 1997, there has been an emergence of avian influenza viruses. “The continued threat of a new, possibly lethal pandemic” has made the study of the 1918-19 pandemic “more relevant than ever.”
By studying the influenza virus of 1918 and other pandemics since, readers can learn specifics about how pandemics work and what impact they have on society. Barry believes that the study of history can give direction for the future. For example, the enormous threat of a pandemic, as exemplified by the history of the 1918 influenza, highlights the importance of a universal vaccine. “Developing this vaccine,” Barry writes, “should be one of the very highest priorities for medical research.”
When Barry speculates about a future pandemic, he admits that even with modern advancements, “the problems presented by a pandemic are, obviously, immense.” The “biggest problem,” however, is not the lack of technology, or the flaws in public health measures. Instead, Barry asserts that the most important weakness is “in the relationship between governments and the truth.”
Throughout the book, Barry makes a forceful argument for the importance of the truth. Again and again, he shows how politicians and newspapers omitted or altered the truth during the 1918-19 pandemic. Instead of giving the public the necessary information, they avoided the issue, gave false assurances, and offered vague and useless precautions. This surrender of the truth cost millions of lives, but it also took a toll on the nation’s psyche. Rather than reassure, the lack of information spread terror. It was arguably that terror, rather than influenza itself, that most ripped communities apart.
Looking to the future, Barry insists that political leaders must be able “to understand the truth—and to be able to handle the truth.” While some public relations consultants refer to “risk communication,” Barry dislikes the term. He writes:
For if there is a single dominant lesson from 1918, it’s that governments need to tell the truth in a crisis. Risk communication implies managing the truth. You don’t manage the truth. You tell the truth.
In his exploration of the 1918-19 pandemic, Barry focuses on leaders and the fallout of their decisions. By doing so, he communicates an important lesson to learn from history, that “those who occupy positions of authority must lessen the panic that can alienate all within a society.” They do this by maintaining trust, and they maintain trust by telling the truth. If trust is broken and terror prevails, society is unable to rise to the challenge.
Analysis
The Great Influenza by John Barry tells the story if the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919 and attempts to explain its significance by discussing its historical context. At the turn of the century, Barry argues, the American medical profession was ill-prepared to deal with a problem of this magnitude. The epidemic started in the United States, and as soldiers left for the western front, it spread to Europe, and then to the rest of the world. In a shockingly short time—15 months—up to 100 million people were dead.
In The Great Influenza, Barry discusses the state of American medicine at the turn of the century. Medical professionals, he claims, were overconfident, but in reality, anti-elitist views during the Jacksonian era had hindered the training of medical doctors and prevented advancement in the medical field. The virus mutated quickly, which contributed significantly to the problem, as the human immune system was unable to keep up with the rapid mutations. A large part of the problem rested on the failure of American medicine to progress during the 19th century, Barry claims, as viral mutations were not well understood by American doctors at the time.
Barry claims that the policies of the U.S. government contributed significantly to the problem, as one of President Woodrow Wilson’s primary objectives was to keep the severity of the disease secret in order to focus on the goals of the war. Therefore, to keep up wartime morale, public officials lied about the disease, and the press perpetuated the lie. As a result, the public failed to understand the danger, and no one was aware that the disease was as deadly as it was.
The Smithsonian article in the link below provides an in-depth analysis of these issues.
