Get Well Soon: History's Worst Plagues and the Heroes Who Fought Them
A witty, irreverent tour of history's worst plagues—from the Antonine Plague, to leprosy, to polio—and a celebration of the heroes who fought them
In 1518, in a small town in Alsace, Frau Troffea began dancing and didn’t stop. She danced until she was carried away six days later, and soon thirty-four more villagers joined her. Then more. In a month more than 400 people had been stricken by the mysterious dancing plague. In late-seventeenth-century England an eccentric gentleman founded the No Nose Club in his gracious townhome—a social club for those who had lost their noses, and other body parts, to the plague of syphilis for which there was then no cure. And in turn-of-the-century New York, an Irish cook caused two lethal outbreaks of typhoid fever, a case that transformed her into the notorious Typhoid Mary.
Throughout time, humans have been terrified and fascinated by the diseases history and circumstance have dropped on them. Some of their responses to those outbreaks are almost too strange to believe in hindsight. Get Well Soon delivers the gruesome, morbid details of some of the worst plagues we’ve suffered as a species, as well as stories of the heroic figures who selflessly fought to ease the suffering of their fellow man. With her signature mix of in-depth research and storytelling, and not a little dark humor, Jennifer Wright explores history’s most gripping and deadly outbreaks, and ultimately looks at the surprising ways they’ve shaped history and humanity for almost as long as anyone can remember.
BUY THE BOOK
Community Reviews
What Bookclubbers are saying about this book
✨ Summarized by Bookclubs AI
Readers say *Get Well Soon* is an engaging, well-researched book blending history with humor, making it informative and entertaining. Many appreciate ...
It's like a progressive feminist Sex and the City character decided to explore history
2,5 stars
At the very start I noticed a very peculiar and modern blog-style to the book. You'll either like it or not. This book feels like a college student telling you about illnesses while at the same time lecturing you on politics and morals.
She kept mentioning women and female achievements in stories about completely different things. It made it seem like a gender studies presentation of history and not just history in itself. It may be extra engaging for feminists who like these moral lectures. For history fans it will feel like a weird style and the ideological biases will not feel as welcome. I don't mind it too much when she just recreates history in the light of a women rights fight. It's not factually wrong as such. It's just misleading and a too narrow a worldview. She is a journalist not a historian and may not have a holistic view of history as many good historians have. But on the other hand I do mind it a lot when she overdoes her moral lectures which she does in the last 5 chapters of the book. Statements like "white heterosexual men" to criticize the Western culture 100 years ago are in bad taste in my opinion. Even if she believes there is some negative culture like that she should describe it better and from more than 1 single perspective.
At any rate the book is a low tier moral argument for women's and marginalized group's rights. That's maybe fine for younger readers. Personally I'd like to think for myself. And when I do want to hear a moral argument it's from intelligent people. Not writers who have a simplified worldview and can't think outside their ideological point of view. She stated the same point over and over again. It would be better if she just started her 2 main progressive biases at the start of the book and then moved on. There is just not much to learn intellectually from the book. We understand right away what groups in society she likes and what groups she dislikes. There is no greater logic behind it. It's emotional and impulsive and frankly irritating when you read the same emotional ideology statement for the 30nd time in a row.
Just to illustrate how simple her logic is. She explains how humans evolved a repulsion towards bad smells as an instinct to run away when there is a smelly predator around. This is bad and misguided evolutionary psychology thinking. It's true for some other species but that's not how humans mainly use their sense of smell. We mainly need to pick out safe food with our sense of smell. This is unfortunately the level of the argument style in the book.
So, the book consists of simple history. That's 4,5/5. Simple but fine. Jokes, maybe 2,5/5. Some of them are just moral statements. Moral statements 1/ 5. Boring and pointless. You can find better moral arguments in a single Coleman Hughes podcast episode than all the moral arguments combined here.
The arguments she makes are so simple that they often are just straight on attacks on men without really any thought behind them. Just "men bad" statements out of nowhere. She also attacks various Republican presidents and politicians. It's not unfair attacks as such it's just ridiculously one-sided as she leaves all progressive politics alone. Once you become political you better be fair. She is not.
The jokes/gags are themselves overdone even if you ignore their constant ideological bias. And when a chapter consists of about 40% of these gags it's too much. There is just not enough history left in the book for me. And the history we get is seen through a Sex and the City lens.
Conclusion
It's a silly, easy to read and fun-style book that never gets dull. But if you are someone who reads a lot there is not much new here. It's cases and idea you surely have heard about many times before. She spices the text up with silly gag jokes. They are not funny but I didn't hate them either. They are irritating at times but overall work to make the topic easier to handle for sporadic readers, I think.
Where she goes wrong is trying to make this an ideological argument. I often read arguments from all kinds of ideologies and gave Communist Manifesto 5 stars for being such a clear logical argument even though it's clearly one-sided. But when a 21st century magazine style journalist tries to act deep it fails and just becomes noise. This is not ideal history at all. This is like a YouTube history video for teenagers.
2,5 stars
At the very start I noticed a very peculiar and modern blog-style to the book. You'll either like it or not. This book feels like a college student telling you about illnesses while at the same time lecturing you on politics and morals.
She kept mentioning women and female achievements in stories about completely different things. It made it seem like a gender studies presentation of history and not just history in itself. It may be extra engaging for feminists who like these moral lectures. For history fans it will feel like a weird style and the ideological biases will not feel as welcome. I don't mind it too much when she just recreates history in the light of a women rights fight. It's not factually wrong as such. It's just misleading and a too narrow a worldview. She is a journalist not a historian and may not have a holistic view of history as many good historians have. But on the other hand I do mind it a lot when she overdoes her moral lectures which she does in the last 5 chapters of the book. Statements like "white heterosexual men" to criticize the Western culture 100 years ago are in bad taste in my opinion. Even if she believes there is some negative culture like that she should describe it better and from more than 1 single perspective.
At any rate the book is a low tier moral argument for women's and marginalized group's rights. That's maybe fine for younger readers. Personally I'd like to think for myself. And when I do want to hear a moral argument it's from intelligent people. Not writers who have a simplified worldview and can't think outside their ideological point of view. She stated the same point over and over again. It would be better if she just started her 2 main progressive biases at the start of the book and then moved on. There is just not much to learn intellectually from the book. We understand right away what groups in society she likes and what groups she dislikes. There is no greater logic behind it. It's emotional and impulsive and frankly irritating when you read the same emotional ideology statement for the 30nd time in a row.
Just to illustrate how simple her logic is. She explains how humans evolved a repulsion towards bad smells as an instinct to run away when there is a smelly predator around. This is bad and misguided evolutionary psychology thinking. It's true for some other species but that's not how humans mainly use their sense of smell. We mainly need to pick out safe food with our sense of smell. This is unfortunately the level of the argument style in the book.
So, the book consists of simple history. That's 4,5/5. Simple but fine. Jokes, maybe 2,5/5. Some of them are just moral statements. Moral statements 1/ 5. Boring and pointless. You can find better moral arguments in a single Coleman Hughes podcast episode than all the moral arguments combined here.
The arguments she makes are so simple that they often are just straight on attacks on men without really any thought behind them. Just "men bad" statements out of nowhere. She also attacks various Republican presidents and politicians. It's not unfair attacks as such it's just ridiculously one-sided as she leaves all progressive politics alone. Once you become political you better be fair. She is not.
The jokes/gags are themselves overdone even if you ignore their constant ideological bias. And when a chapter consists of about 40% of these gags it's too much. There is just not enough history left in the book for me. And the history we get is seen through a Sex and the City lens.
Conclusion
It's a silly, easy to read and fun-style book that never gets dull. But if you are someone who reads a lot there is not much new here. It's cases and idea you surely have heard about many times before. She spices the text up with silly gag jokes. They are not funny but I didn't hate them either. They are irritating at times but overall work to make the topic easier to handle for sporadic readers, I think.
Where she goes wrong is trying to make this an ideological argument. I often read arguments from all kinds of ideologies and gave Communist Manifesto 5 stars for being such a clear logical argument even though it's clearly one-sided. But when a 21st century magazine style journalist tries to act deep it fails and just becomes noise. This is not ideal history at all. This is like a YouTube history video for teenagers.
I absolutely loved this book. Learning about plagues and pandemics while living in this post Covid world was so interesting. There are lessons to be learned from every plague and I think we could all do ourselves a favor and learn what these lessons are, to prevent bad things from happening in the future.
Extremely well researched...still unsure if I liked the constant humor - sometimes it felt like the author was trying too hard and I just wanted her to get to the point. But, lucky for me, I happen to agree with many of the author's opinions, particularly toward the end of the book when she discusses the AIDS crisis and I admire her passion for justice for society's underserved. She seems like a really fun and interesting person to meet at a party or to sit and have a cup of coffee with.
See why thousands of readers are using Bookclubs to stay connected.