This is not the interesting and engaging narrative seen in the Diary of a Plague Year. This has a very similar style but the content is dry and repetitive. However, this could be because this is a collection of scientific research and journalism, whereas the Diary of a Plague Year was a combination of history, research and fiction. The interesting information is how the letters are written and what damage was done. However, I think more of an inclusion of how people or communities felt about the storm and the damage would have allowed for a more engaging narrative instead of the 'list' type contents of the letters. The most interesting accounts are the letters from Miles Norcliffe and the following account of R.P and Defoe's comments on it.