I just finished "Big Weather" and since I'm not a storm chaser per se and don't bill myself as such (although I really do enjoy lurking here and reading you guys that are...) I'll offer my perspective as sort of a typical Everyreader.
First, I think the "carpetbagger journalism" that some have placed on Svenvold is unfair, and it's something all writers get tagged with. Basically, outside observation is what all journalism is, especially the type of literary nonfiction Svenvold is attempting. Writers are writers because they're good at describing what they observe, and being an expert in a field or hard-core member of a subcult is not a prereq for writing a good story about the subject. As Shane noted above, an outside voice adds perspective to a story it wouldn't otherwise have. And I do have to say Svenvold is a gifted writer.
Having said that, however, I think "Big Weather is a flawed work, for a variety of reasons. First, it suffers from a seemingly complete lack of editing. I don't mean copyediting for grammar or style, I mean content editing. I'd say fully a third of the total word count should have been edited out. There are simply too many tangential passages and chapters that don't ever tie together or come back to the book's stated subject. The chapters dealing with the Weather Channel and global warming, what would Jesus drive, and how firm is your foundation are examples of this. They really interrupt the flow of the book. There's nothing wrong with expounding on ancillary topics as long as you can rein it in, or, I don't know, connect the dots back to storm chasing in some way, but Svenvold loses readers in too many long, rambling, off-topic and - quite frankly - mind-numbingly boring passages.
Another gripe I have is Svenvold's penchant for extraneous detail. All writers strive for descriptive color and nailing little details that add to a scene, but it can be overdone. A perfect example of this is on page 118, when he goes to hear Warren Faidley speak. Did we really need a whole page devoted to the history of the Springfield Public Forum?
I don't necessarily blame Svenvold for this, however. He's a writer, and that's what writers do. That's also why every good writer needs a good editor to sort the wheat from the chaff. Svenvold's writing is good, it just has too much chaff blowing around.
Where I was really disappointed, however, was when Svenvold fell into the same old cliched generalizations of the region and its people that those of us who live here have been enduring for years. He doesn't seem to have developed much appreciation for anything or anyone other than the main subjects of his book. According to him the landscape itself is mind-numbingly monotonous. The people (other than the chasers, of course) are hard-luck religious fundamentalists and those that could get out got out a long time ago. Those of us too poor or dumb to escape this cultural purgatory have had to eke out a hardscrabble collective existence as the rest of the nation passes us by. His argument for this sweeping socio-economic assessment? Basements. More specifically, the lack thereof. This is where Svenvold's writing really jumps the tracks into the patently ridiculous, a sneering, patronizing screed against what he perceives as Oklahoma's embedded cultural and economic shortcomings.
I'm not just engaging in knee-jerk provincial Chamber of Commerce boosterism here, either. It seems like Svenvold was simply too lazy, too supercilious or just didn't care enough to devote any time or research to developing the character of the landscape and its people like he did with both the main chasing characters in the book and his numerous off-topic ruminations on life, religion and philosophy, so he plucked a few anecdotal observations out of the air and started riffing. The book suffers as a result. Way too much aren't-I-clever bias-tinged scene interpretation and way too little fly-on-the-wall scene observation.
Like most of you, I've always been enthralled with plains weather, and I've always hoped some writer would take the time, and have the empathy and interest in this region to write a great, lyric book about the symbiosis between the sweeping, awe-inspiring nature of the landscape and its weather. I don't know for sure, but I suspect many of you prefer to chase the plains at least as much for the spare beauty of the landscape as you do the road network and unimpeded view. I think that's an important part of the chaser experience and I believe Svenvold really failed to develop that, among other things.
All in all, though, despite what I thought were some major flaws, I considered it a mildly enjoyable read overall. Not gripping by any means, but Svenvold can turn a phrase. Interestingly enough, I believe Svenvold's father-in-law is John McPhee, who is the absolute, undisputed master of the literary journalism form. Wonder what he thinks of the book?
