|
Post by crzhrs on May 2, 2008 12:38:23 GMT -6
Pedestrian view... I spent several pleasant evenings reading it. So . . . would you say you learned anything from the read? Apparently the most interesting part of the book are all the footnotes and references, especially from "unpublished" diaries and accounts that I haven't read anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 2, 2008 12:50:44 GMT -6
On reflection, this book begins to read to me like the work of a hired gun for benefit of a group with an agenda, to reinstall the drunk thesis. Might just be coincidence, but given the errors which would normally explode the ire of Custerphiles - and this is absent - my suspicions, finely honed, are on alert.
So, I here again offer first-read issues, to now ignored, and see what those who found this a well written and fascinating account are willing to address.
1. Kellogg's notes only go to June 9, says Connell, but Donovan has the "I go with Custer" note to the publisher (not part of the story) written on the 24th, apparently because of the Rosebud reference. Who is wrong?
2. The mutually exclusive descriptions of Reno's flask, including one that Donovan says was emptied in the timber by Reno (page 256), suggest what degree of surety to you? That most were obtained fifty years later adds how much weight in your estimation? Given the combat circumstances, it seems perfectly logical to you that Reno provided numerous separately observed gulping sessions to men who had time and interest to observe, rather a tale that grew in the telling? You find nothing wrong with using as evidence the testimony of people who admitted they themselves were drinking?
3. How do you explain the lack of cognitive dissonance in Donovan on separate pages claiming first Custer was shot on the right side, and later on the left? Does that imply a rush job to you? How do you explain this slipping past the numerous people who supposedly read it before release?
4. Since Crow and Ree and Sioux were not written languages back then, variations in translation from a single spoken/signed moment would have to be by someone present. So, the Half Yellowface Quote on page 212. Instead of "...a road we do not know" it is "...a road strange to us both." How do you explain this variation?
5. For those who found it well written, what quote from Donovan's sings in memory most musically for you?
6. He loves Sklenar, finds him insightful, then ignores the entire bizarre point of To Hell With Honor, which was that Benteen’s ‘scout’ was to come in on the side of the auxillary camp. How is it he greatly praises a book and author but ignores the book's point utterly?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 2, 2008 13:18:21 GMT -6
DC:
So . . . you don't recommend it?
I think I'll take it out of my local town library instead of paying for something that apparently everyone has a wide range of opinions on.
As they say . . . it's all in the eyes of the beholder . . . or in this case, the reader.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 2, 2008 14:40:34 GMT -6
For what it's worth, my friend the beginner doesn't agree that it's a good starter book, halfway through. Though I'm not sure what he would consider appropriate in that category; perhaps I'll recommend SOTMS to him. I enjoyed the book very much myself. I think we must expect everyone to have their own point of view; I would be very surprised if an author did not.
|
|
|
Post by clw on May 2, 2008 17:30:39 GMT -6
dc, I'd like a quick list from you of your top five LBH books. This is not a trap. I really want to know.
Ok. It's not a book for experts. I'm not one, so I learned a few things.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 2, 2008 18:28:27 GMT -6
Glad you said LBH, and not Custer.
1. SOTMS, best adult intro (as proven by a quarter century in print, by far the biggest seller) for non Custerphile/phobe types. His empathy is contagious, and he’s neither phobe nor phile.
2., 3. Gray’s two books, Centennial Campaign and Custer’s Last Campaign
4. Where Custer Fell
5. The Custer Myth
These are either well written or boringly dedicated to fact or both. While Gray had his prejudices, and his age and illness show in Custer’s Last Campaign (MY prejudice), they’re obvious and not hidden. Well written tomes are generally the ones that get people interested, regardless of else.
Custer’s Luck doesn’t entrap me as much as Connell, but it’s good as well.
There are numerous very specific books that would be for the completely mentally entrapped. I find the RCOI fascinating, but I can’t say it’s a beach book if you don’t know anything about it. Bourke, Cozzens, some of Michno (his encyclopedia, errors, bizarre rants and all, is REALLY handy), and the 5500 yearly same-old’s about Custer, his wife, horse, brother, other horse, other brother, preferred laundry soaps, trollops, Indian trollops, alien probings, what if’s, and self-penned entries into local, institutional chronic bins.
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on May 3, 2008 4:06:21 GMT -6
Just finished the book and, while I would consider it an enjoyable read, it would not be as good O'Connell's SOTMS in terms of a reference book. As I said earlier in the thread, I agree with Darkcloud's comments on the drunken soldiers theme that runs through the sections dealing with LBH - too much emphasis on alcohol without accounting for the era and the times that were. Stigmatising Reno (and a few others) as drunken fools is too simplistic; its the same as saying the Custer was an arrogant egotistical commander. Panders to stereotypes.
(Speaking of which, if I read anywhere else that Keogh was a "soldier of fortune", I'll scream. Does every soldier that gets paid become a 'fortune seeker'?. He volunteered for the Papal army, Union army and was a citizen of the US by the time of LBH. Hardly a mercenary...)
In short, entertaining read (enjoyed Donovan's style) but minimal new information. Annoyances - Too much alcohol and not enough credit given to the experience of the 7th's officers or the drilling that the troopers received, new recruits included.
Robert
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on May 3, 2008 10:44:40 GMT -6
I talked to Jim about his book and he does not not know how the paragraph with the wounds on the right side happened. He knew it was incorrect. Unfortunately he did not have time to correct it before it went into print. Those of you who have had anything published in the past will know how mistakes are often caught too late. I have had the same thing happen on several projects. For those of you who haven't published anything, here is a challenge. Give yourself two weeks to write an article for the Research Review. After two weeks stop writing. Then reread your article and find your mistakes. You will be amazed at how many errors you find. Next send it to the Research Review editorial staff and see how many more errors they find. If your article eventually gets published you can then find out how DC and others start picking it apart with psycho-babble arguments that they can neither prove or disprove.
While I agree that there is no 100% proof that Reno was intoxicated during the battle, there is certainly more evidence to support it than otherwise. It can obviously not be disproved. Jim's opinion on that matter is sound and probably based upon the research done by Walter Camp, who certainly believed it after discussing the battle with more survivors than anyone else ever did. I personally believe that any eyewitness account must be backed up with other evidence before I give it much value. This can be other accounts (still weak), physical evidence, logic in the form of time and distance research (preferably actual, not guesses), and studying the decisions made at the time and why they were made. In this case, Reno made some very unusual decisions that were not rational at the time. Once again, not 100% positive proof but adds weight to the statements some of the officers and enlisted men made to Camp. It also provides a logical reason for Benteen to stop at Reno's position for so long before following Custer's orders to "come on."
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 3, 2008 12:43:16 GMT -6
It's important the public knows you talked to 'Jim', Gumby. How it likely happened is probably because Sgt. Ryan claimed the right side and virtually everyone else the left, and Ryan buried him, we're told, so it's a puzzle. 'Jim' really doesn't know it's wrong, as it may not be. Further, the authors of Custer Fell Here give prominence to a story that the head wound, which bled into his mouth, wasn't the fatal shot as opposed to most other opinions. It's not an issue of which is correct - we don't know and it's of overpowering unimportance - but that all the people directly involved and not who reviewed and read it assuring us of its merits apparently didn't catch it. This, if they read it, which I increasingly doubt.
It's common in Custerland and genres of this level, but it is in no way indicative of historians, who deal with deadlines and those sorts of pressures. It's their job.
Further, there is no psychobabble argument on my part at all, indicating you don't know what it means or you're deliberately fabicating. If so, what is it? Show me. Still, it now amuses me to point out the favored genital mutilation was graphically included.
I doubt anyone here would want fifty year old recollections used to conclude they were drunk at a given point. Especially when, if you had been drunk, it would make the recollector less guilty or incompetent in history's eyes. You can blame the drunk, and they did. In any case, as in the case of Taylor, most of these recollections are so far after the fact, it would be highly improbable they weren't referencing each other or the current PC version then in vogue: Booze kills. Which is why Prohibition was voted in. Imagine the mental world of this nation outlawing booze.
You say "In this case, Reno made some very unusual decisions that were not rational at the time." Wow. That's genuine psychobabble, and that doesn't hold up. Name the Reno decision, and a perfectly plausible reason derived from circumstance can be offered, and if Custer made it in the same circumstance, most certainly would be offered. The decisions don't require him to be drunk, or unable to control fear. Rather, the benchmarks we have of Reno drunk, he was anything BUT a coward, and quite pugnacious.
At best, though, drunkeness would still be Custer's fault, given he not only did not prevent the sale of booze but allowed it to the last possible moment. If I were given to this sort of thing, I'd inquire: did the perpetually broke Custer get a cut of liquor sales made on the Yellowstone to his men? Is the story of the rum line in the field on the Rosebud true? Is there any basis for imagining Custer cut sleazoid deals in the past that would add weight to this? You know, things that came to light when his darling, beloved widow realized despite her inheritance, Custer had squandered all?
Does anyone really think Benteen or French or Weir or anyone wouldn't remove Reno from command if he were out of his mind? Do you really think the crying soldier who refused to charge with the others, none of whom were wounded, was hit between the eyes at the moment of their return by a suddenly expert Indian marksman? You think the same wouldn't happen to Reno?
EVERYbody drank, for all intents. They had no water. When Camp was collecting, the popular press was FULL of stories about the evils of booze, the sort of magazines that old men would read, perhaps apply backwards.
Actual combat vets disagree on Martin's note, which Benteen seemingly enjoyed calling orders because they were terrible, uninformative, mere exhortation, and yet repetitive in so few words.
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on May 3, 2008 16:01:47 GMT -6
"It also provides a logical reason for Benteen to stop at Reno's position for so long before following Custer's orders to "come on."
Gumby, you seriously can't blame that decision on Reno allegedly being intoxicated?
Let's then exaggerate the behaviour of those that Donovan recounts were slugging back the devil's brew; Benny Hodgson and Charlie Reynolds killed because they stumbled in a drunken stupor out of the timber..... Girard, too drunk to mount his horse, passed out behind a bush thus saving his life...
Me thinks that the alcohol stories are an attempt to find a new angle to LBH. Still enjoyed the book but then I'd read anything about LBH when I have the time
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 3, 2008 17:32:13 GMT -6
Doyle, I tend to think of "soldier of fortune" as a romantic description rather than necessarily meaning a mercenary. Keogh finally decided his fortune lay in the U.S. and became a citizen, but he moved around a bit prior to that.
I would say that Reno's decision to leave his command and go down to Hodgson's body to retrieve his personal effects was not that of a good commander, and could be described as not very rational.
I would tend to think that Porter's description of Custer's body would be the most precise.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 3, 2008 18:40:17 GMT -6
"I would say that Reno's decision to leave his command and go down to Hodgson's body to retrieve his personal effects was not that of a good commander, and could be described as not very rational."
You could, and have, and others have. But there were perfectly rational reasons for doing so. They may not be true just as the drunk charge may not be true, but rational and possible. As the officer on the ground in charge, it's his call. He should be accorded that till else is proven, not charged.
I'd start by pointing out that had Hodgeson been left to be sliced up in full view and Reno did nothing, the people who deride him for trying to render posthumous service would be the first to cast penalty. Reno would render no decency to his supposed friend and adjutant when he could have.
But, being adjutant, what papers and items could Hodgeson have of importance demanding attempt to retrieve? Copies of orders from Custer (for the devoted Custerphile, this. Perhaps notes saying "Reno, you PROMISED.....!!!!! Traitor!"), rosters, liquor bills, record of orders given....
"I would tend to think that Porter's description of Custer's body would be the most precise." Well, one blackened suppurating bag of gas ripe to explode may look much like another after three days. I, for one, think the various conflicting descriptions suggest a cover story that went wrong, and Custer was smashed up good like everyone. The norms of the day and the necessity of not being graphic edged the officers to an agreed upon fable, which I don't think either wrong or unusual. I think the differing descriptions of burial process and the problems of the next exhumation support that possibility. If you misuse "Soldier of Fortune" in application to an actual Soldier For Fortune like Keogh was, as too was Cooke, and Custer himself considered, it shouldn't damn, but it's still incorrect. What, pray, is the 'romantic' definition? In romantic fiction - godawful, all of it - it serves as metaphor for gigolo or predator, a man looking for the sort of women who reads those books only enclosed within the covers and story to propose unending bliss with no tab payable by him.
I note nobody has addressed the queries raised about Terrible Glory.
You misuse topmast for top gallant, as I see three sections to the foremast.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 4, 2008 3:05:28 GMT -6
I'd start by pointing out that had Hodgeson been left to be sliced up in full view and Reno did nothing, the people who deride him for trying to render posthumous service would be the first to cast penalty. Reno would render no decency to his supposed friend and adjutant when he could have. Why is Hodgson getting sliced up more important that the other guys who were also getting sliced up? And why is it more important to see to the needs of a dead guy than those of the live ones? Who said anything about romantic fiction? And what are you saying? It looks like you are saying that Keogh was a soldier of fortune, but it's incorrect to call him that. That makes no sense. What on earth are you talking about???
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 4, 2008 8:15:55 GMT -6
1. He's the adjutant. That's why. And such an important role might have stuff on him of importance to the command. Also, the guy had tried to leave the 7th and was talked back in. Some guilt, perhaps. And unlike some others, he was retrievable. Nobody questioned the preferential treatment given the dead by rank back then. As was pointed out at the RCOI and elsewhere, the men were busy tending wounded, retrieving mounts, recovering, and the lack of 'hurry up' that annoys is solely due to our knowledge now that Custer was eating it. Even, then, there was nothing Reno could do. They had no indication that they would stay there, so no digging in. Waiting for the train, in any case. Whatever, but it's certainly not "illogical" to go to the adjutant.
2. I asked what the "romantic" definition of Soldier of Fortune was. Hearing no answer, I assumed you meant the literary usage periodically in romantic fiction, which isn't favorable to your cause. Keogh WAS a Soldier of Fortune, because he sold his martial valor in exchange for compensation to a nation or cause of which he was not then a citizen. That he later became a citizen here does not negate that fact. 3. Aren't you the person who claims to work on a three masted ship on the west coast and described an accidental breakage on another Custer board of a top gallant described as a top mast?
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 4, 2008 13:57:49 GMT -6
1. He's the adjutant. That's why. And such an important role might have stuff on him of importance to the command. Also, the guy had tried to leave the 7th and was talked back in. Some guilt, perhaps. And unlike some others, he was retrievable. Nobody questioned the preferential treatment given the dead by rank back then. As was pointed out at the RCOI and elsewhere, the men were busy tending wounded, retrieving mounts, recovering, and the lack of 'hurry up' that annoys is solely due to our knowledge now that Custer was eating it. Even, then, there was nothing Reno could do. They had no indication that they would stay there, so no digging in. Waiting for the train, in any case. Whatever, but it's certainly not "illogical" to go to the adjutant. Okay--good points. But if Hodgson did have important papers on him, I don't believe that has been recorded anywhere. Correct me if I'm mistaken--I know you will. You did not ask for a definition of "soldier of fortune;" you defined it yourself in your previous post, without waiting for any sort of answer. What I said had nothing to do with romantic fiction; you made that up. I said it was a "romantic" term for exactly what you are describing. Oh, I get it! You are dragging in irrelevant, unrelated information from another board to show how stupid I am! Pardon me if I didn't get that right away. Yes, you are technically correct--it is the fore topgallant, not the foremast--that's what I get for posting in a hurry. While you're at it, why don't you check out my posts on the folk music forum at mudcat.org--with your bottomless knowledge of all subjects, I'm sure you could find more mistakes to illustrate my lack of intelligence. The fact that none of that has anything to do with the topic under discussion is, of course, not important, as long as you can get in a dig or two. I do not "claim" to work there, I DO work there--if you would like to verify this, I suggest you contact San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. For that matter, I've never seen you--how do I know you're not a 12-year-old girl masquerading as a bad-tempered pontificator?
|
|