MY BOYS AND GIRLS | history-with-hagan

STUDY GUIDE: MY BOYS AND GIRLS ARE IN THERE

My Boys and Girls are in There joins the numerous other books written about the New London School Disaster of 1937. This one stands out because of its poignant, narrative approach to the subject. Rather than develop the technical issues having to to with gas and its use, rather than explain the disaster in a way that creates a villain or lays blame, this author wants to recall and reanimate the story, highlight some of the victims in a way that makes us remember and relate to them, and draw attention to New London and the excellent museum it maintains.

With a book like this, the analysis shifts away from the facts and into how well the author has handled the details of the disaster, and his purpose, tone, and technique.

However, even in a narrative book like this, look for the argument. We think of argument solely in regards to a thesis. However, narratives like this one also carry the author's beliefs and opinions. In this case, the narrative tries to absolve blame for the tragedy and argues that the use of wet gas did not play a role in destroying the school.

We also identify factors that led to the tragedy and see if we can assign responsibility, even if the author refuses.

For this reason, when you read this book and prepare for the exam, you want to do this:

Start by reading the author's own statements about the disaster. In the Prologue and in the Author's Notes at the end, he tells you a lot more about his book and his motivations than most authors reveal.

Before you get too heavily involved in the narrative itself, understand all of the following:

AUTHOR AND APPROACH INFORMATION:

The author

The author's connection to the New London disaster

The author's dismay about how this tragedy has faded from memory

The author's initial purpose in writing this book and how that purpose changed during the writing process. Why it changed. (Change is common in history and a good sign. Every historian has started out a project with one question and ended with another. This is normal.)

The author's approach to this subject, which he notes is semi-fictional

The author's argument about the New London disaster.

The source of the title

You need to consider these things to some extent as you go through the book.

RESEARCH:

You will be in a better position to judge the content of the book if you also check the research. This is a critical task to perform with any history book. ALWAYS look at the research. Check the sources, the interviews, the scope of the research. What you're looking for is evidence of any of the following:

Bias - did the author only research what he/she wanted to hear? Only talk to people who back up his/her argument?
Neglect - did the author ignore something of importance or give it a limited treatment in an effort to preserve his/her argument?
Superficiality - did the author just repeat what other people have said? What does this author bring to the table? Did the author check any primary documents or conduct archival research?
Error - did the author miss something, misreport something? This one gets easier to identify the more expertise you gain in your field.
Thoroughness - does the research look good? Is there enough?

Continuing on. To show that you have completed this book and understand the contents, know the following:

The story itself
Where and when this disaster took place
The subjects (people) who the author develops
How the author develops the subjects. If the book is slightly fictitious, where you do see evidence of this approach.
Who gets developed and who does not? Why do you imagine the author chose these people?

If the book tries to bring back people and a time lost to a tragedy, then we need to follow the author's directions and learn what he wants us to know. That includes the following:

A bit about the developed characters. Since the purpose of the book is to get us to remember the lost, remember them.
The specific names of people the author links prominently to the disaster -- WC Shaw, Boyd Abercrombie, Floy and Marvin Dees, Pearl Shaw - and their lives/behaviors.
The day of the disaster - what it was like, what was happening that day
What people were doing the day of the disaster
Who died and who survived.

New London - its history, size, location, and lack of government
The school itself - how long it had stood at the site of the disaster
The luxuries afforded by this school
How New London had the money to pay for this school
What grades attended the building that exploded and the classes available to them

THE DISASTER:

For this part, you want to have an understanding of how people in the area tapped into gas lines for use in their homes and businesses.

You should also know about the following:

Wet or unrefined, free gas and the concerns about its use
How the use of gas in the New London School was particularly, even insanely, dangerous. Here, you need to be aware of how the school was constructed and the location of the gas lines, ventilation, etc.
Why the school made the decision to use free gas
The action that triggered the explosion
When it happened
How some people avoided death
How others died
The conditions that produced such a massive explosion
How many people died in the explosion
The condition of the dead, as this plays a role in misidentification and extended the tragedy

THE AFTERMATH:

Here, you want to look at how such a small community responded to a disaster of such magnitude. This part gets into who responded, their initial actions, and eventually the involvement of the state. The response is one of the most powerful and haunting aspects of the disaster.

Who heard the explosion
Who responded first
The initial approach to the disaster, which involved a lot of chaos
How order gradually emerged
How rescuers initially managed the dead and injured and how that contributed to difficulties locating victims in the days to come
The nearby places that served as hospitals and morgues
The use of peach baskets
The speed in which rescuers reduced the debris field, even as it rained all night
Governor James Allred, the announcements he made in response to the disaster, and his decision to declare martial law in the area
The significance of Mother Francis Hospital
Who got access to the site after order was restored
Walter Cronkite and his presence at the site of the disaster
The speed in which the debris field was removed

The inquiry that opened in the aftermath of the disaster and what it determined about the cause of the tragedy.
Why the court of inquiry didn't assign blame to an individual and the local reaction to that decision
WC Shaw's testimony
The reforms having to do with gas that came out of this disaster

The burials and cemeteries involved
How families behaved after they buried their children
Survivor's guilt and the people affected in particular
Cases of mistaken identity
How quickly the students went back to school and what that first day was like
The memorial that stands in front of the school

Larger questions:

Why a disaster of such magnitude simply faded out of memory. What factors in Texas and the world explain this?

Your response to this disaster. This book is all about recreating a culture, a day, a group of people, an aftermath. It is proper for us to examine what it does to us.

Responsibility for the disaster. This book does not assign blame. But should we? Do you think the school and its leaders behaved recklessly? Should they have known better? Or should they be absolved.

The effects the tragedy had on the living. The list of the dead at the end of the book is enormous. What did that much loss in such a small locale do to those who remained? Has New London recovered?