|
Post by biggordie on May 27, 2008 14:55:01 GMT -6
bc:
As to your theory - make one up!! That's what everyone does, me included. You can find sufficient "evidence" to support virtually any theory, and if you can't find any, you can make some of that up too - you would hardly be the first to cite non-existent sources, or to misrepresent some of those which do exist.
To sell your book, however, it must be a NEW AND STARTLING TRUTH!!!!
On another thread, Scout posted something about more dung being flung [regarding a survivor tale]. I'm contemplating stealing that phrase for the title of my book: FLUNG DUNG: BEING A NEW AND STARTLING TRUE ACCOUNT OF CUSTER'S LAST STAND, FEATURING NEW AND HITHERTO UNDISCOVERED AND NEWLY CREATED SOURCES, INCLUDING THE DIARIES OF TWO OR MORE TRUE SEVENTH CAVALRY SURVIVORS. COMPLETE AND UNABRIDGED.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 27, 2008 15:02:26 GMT -6
So.....the answer is 'no', nobody's actually read it. Well, one guy except for the first ten chapters.......
Custerland.
|
|
jason
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by jason on May 27, 2008 15:31:05 GMT -6
As a newcomer to the board, I’m probably jumping into very deep, shark-infested waters by diving into this thread, but I will admit to having read Donovan’s book. I think Donovan leans heavily toward the pro-Custer side of things; I felt that the book conveys the notion that Custer had a brilliant plan and it would have been successful if not for the cowardly, drunken Reno, and the Eeevilll Benteen. To be fair, though, Donovan does place some blame on Custer for dividing the command so much on the day of the battle.
Just my take on it. I don’t think there’s anything particularly earth-shattering in the book. For example, it’s nothing new to theorize that Reno was drunk the day of the battle. It’s nothing new to say that Benteen hated Custer. The whole idea of a “coverup” at the RCOI isn’t really a new theory either, or at the very least, I don’t think it’s that shocking to say that there was a lot of CYA going on from numerous parties after the battle. So again, if you’re looking for groundbreaking new info, I don’t know that you are going to find it here. I think it’s just one man’s theory, written in such a way (heavy on narrative) that makes it easy for the uninitiated to understand (whether Donovan’s theories are WORTH understanding is open to debate, as is the case with any LBH theory book).
I personally don’t agree with his theories; I knew I didn't just by flipping through the book at Barnes and Noble. But I didn’t buy the book to find out what Donovan’s theories were. I'm not really worried about what his theories are, because EVERYONE has a theory. I am working on my OWN theories, and I took the quick route of buying the book for the bibliography and footnotes, to see if there was anything in there that could further my own research.
Jason
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 27, 2008 16:20:55 GMT -6
Gordie, I don't know enough to make up a theory from scratch. My boots aren't tall enough and I'm to short to navigate through all the dung and now that the dung is being flung, I'll need a helmut and flak jacket to protect me from aerial attack especially from the sticky stuff. But I'm following you, conz, keough, fred, and others and applying my own analysis. Watched clair and keough discuss the keough fight on the other board and they are close together, however I can't reach my own conclusion till they get to the LSH fight. Keough's positioning of crazy horse doesn't make sense if custer is sitting on LSH and/or known to cz. I'll just keep reading.
The research I would like to do, (and no one else is remotely interested in doing), is to see if I can find any shred of truth out of Lockwood's book prior to his enlistment after the LBH. There were some unknown packers at the LBH. If Lockwood (and his relatives) were on any of the other expeditions in prior years and a good friend of Charlie Reynolds, then there would be some records of his having been on those expeditions and being paid. Sometime and someday I want to see more info before I determine whether or not he has flunged dung or not.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 29, 2008 1:04:17 GMT -6
What Jason said. I have read the book and enjoyed it very much. It's a good overview and I would recommend it to anyone who wanted a basic account of what happened (or maybe happened). It doesn't really matter if you agree with Donovan's theories or not--it's a good starting point for people who are beginning a serious study.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 29, 2008 9:55:04 GMT -6
Me too. To be honest, I don't think it really aims to be a "battle theory" book; its focus is just as much on what happened before and what happened after. The battle's the centrepiece, inevitably, but the rest is useful too: putting it all in context, which most purely "battle" books don't set out to do. As you say, a good starting point -- and one that could take people on into many different directions of study (the Indians' story, the politics of the time, Custer's CW career, the press, whatever) quite apart from the battle itself.
|
|
|
Post by First Sergeant on Jan 13, 2010 9:47:04 GMT -6
What Jason said. I have read the book and enjoyed it very much. It's a good overview and I would recommend it to anyone who wanted a basic account of what happened (or maybe happened). It doesn't really matter if you agree with Donovan's theories or not--it's a good starting point for people who are beginning a serious study. As I posted in the other thread, I read it, enjoyed it, and agree with the basic premise that its a good basic account. Nothing changed, everyone that died before died again.
|
|