City of Death, a biography of the life of Ephraim Mattos and written by Scott McEwen, is a great read. The book is made up of different stories from Ephraim Mattos’ time in the Middle East, and was officially released soon after the end of the war against ISIS. It follows the timeline of his life, from his childhood to his return from combat. The idea conveyed in the text is that hatred is the most destructive force out of any, even more so than that of those he fought.
To briefly summarize the events in the book, it quickly explains his religious upbringing in Wisconsin and its effect on his trajectory in life. After that, it follows on his short time in the Navy SEALs and how it didn’t make him feel any better about his goal to do right in the world. After that, a majority of the book covers his time with the Free Burma Rangers (FBR) and the Battle of Mosul.
So then, does the book convey its purpose effectively? Absolutely. The most effective parts in bringing the purpose into fruition are the brief moments between Ephraim and the other FBR members explaining his changing views of hatred against the enemy. There was a lot less focus on this point than there could have been, all things considered. If there were more scenes or events focused on the effects of this changing view, there would have been more efficiency in expressing the major point within the text.
One of the rhetorical choices made in this book is a kind of distance from the events. And it makes sense, considering that the book was written from memories and recall. There is a passively framed idea that this book is told for a purpose, and not just as a simple feel-good or thriller, but as something with values worth maintaining. An example of that is that everyone deserves to be helped, no matter who they are. A sort of wisdom is portrayed, one wrapped in the cloak of experience and virtue. The distance written into the story does not make it seem like a far-off theory, but like one that had enough impact to need to be written.
I would say this book doesn’t exactly align with its intended audience, since the main group that would learn this lesson would not be the type to read a book about conflicts in the Middle East, and it also feels rather… away from the reader. The book takes place in such distant regions, which makes it hard for the reader to relate, and thus truly understand the purpose.
Personally, I would say the best part of this book was during the assault on Gharbulah. It sets up how the rest of the book will feel and preps the style and scene that continues through the other chapters and fights. I would recommend this book because it portrays the humanity and reality behind conflict that many people neglect or ignore, and brings forward the idea that hatred is a major setback in helping people. Overall, it is definitely a book worth reading.