••

Historical biography, especially about the Tudor period in England. American Civil War comes a very close second.

Not sure if this is really an answer to your question, as it is neither of the above, but I make a point of rereading CITY AT WORLD'S END, by Edmond Hamilton, at least once a year.

••

I have read and reread THE DEVIL IN THE WHITE CITY several times, tho I was disappointed with Larsen's next effort, THUNDERSTRUCK. A failed attempt to rebottle the lightning of DEVIL, that simply strained too far to make its "connections". I had not heard about ISAAC'S STORM, but I did recently watch a show on the Weather Channel about the Galveston storm. Terrifying! Came close to making Katrina look like a harsh breeze. I may have to check out this book.

PET SEMETARY by Stephen King.

I have mixed feelings about King's work. Some of his books are great but many are mediocre in my opinion. This is one of the better ones so far.

Getting ready to read  On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Dr. No. Have never read a James Bond book before.

My favorite types of reading are history and biographies.

Heh, I'm also reading Isaac's Storm by Erik Larson.

Just finished Hounded by Kevin Hearne which was a very good urban fantasy set in Arizona. Only problem I had was that it was described as funny by a reviewer and I don't think I laughed once. Humor is hard to make work in a novel and usually translates to a bright, airy feel (which this had) but seldom ever provokes laughter. At least for me.

Last week I read The Devil in the White City which as I was reading it I found utterly engrossing but given some time and thought I'm a little less enamored of the book. Basically the two leads are thematically linked but their link in real life is very tenuous and I kept thinking there had to be some connection for the book to focus on those two men like it did. Basically, the killer just happens to be around Chicago at the time of the World's fair and would have done the same thing pretty much anywhere else he happened to be. Thematically, as a contrast between the two, it was brilliant but the man who shoots the mayor at the end of the fair seems like a better fit as a work of history. But that's probably just me (though there were times when reading it that I thought Larson had started with that concept and moved away when the story of the shooter proved not to be as interesting as he might have hoped).

Here Larson eschews the "parallel lives" approach that worked so well in CITY but failed so completely in THUNDERSTRUCK. Already GARDEN is a better book for this choice.

••

If Larson had not stated up front that the two men never met (so far as is known) you might have a point. But since he did, then your criticism basically boils down to "this is not the book / would have written" -- and speaking as an author, that is a school of commentary I find utterly unacceptable.

Read a book for what it IS, not what you think it should have been.