|
Post by gary on Jun 2, 2008 13:41:50 GMT -6
I've nearly finished reading "A Terrible Glory" and my overall impression is positive. His descriptions of the troop movements at the LBH are very clear and bring the battle to life. My only quibbles are, firstly, an occasional comment which seems to have no source and, secondly, his Indian accounts. He is certainly most impressive when discussing the military side, as opposed to the Indians. Subject to these caveats, I'd have no reservations in recommending this book.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 5, 2008 8:51:54 GMT -6
In the older thread on this below, I listed a bunch of issues with the book which nobody addresses whatsoever. Would be interested on your takes and opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jun 5, 2008 9:31:34 GMT -6
Oh, you must mean your point regarding the dedication to Motherdear ... that's incredibly relevant to the author's approach to telling the story of said battle. Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 10, 2008 10:31:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jun 10, 2008 15:31:02 GMT -6
Bill O'Reilly has it as the first of three books recommended for summer reading. It's meant to appeal to the masses, and I'm pleased for Jim's success. Despite O'Reilly's endorsement, I will still read it. Diane, is that "Yankee Go Home" sign from your city limits? Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 10, 2008 19:42:01 GMT -6
Actually, I reference his new translations, his errors, and prejudices, and the fact his end notes do not actually support his text opinion, and all with page numbers.
It bothers me nobody, no one, addresses ANY of them. I do not feel the presence of anti-matter should I be wrong, and would in fact be surprised if I were totally right. But it really bothers me, for all the talk and blather, nobody here has given the slightest indication that they read the whole book, and they don't defend the points in contention.
Even understanding friendships and all, that's a rank betrayal of this board's point and purpose, and its mimic, which alludes to seeking the truth, etc. I know it's hard to criticize friends in print in public. But it was his choice and is your obligation. Especially if its going to be heavily read, as Les Nessman wants.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 10, 2008 22:39:32 GMT -6
Billy -- funny! Unfortunately, we depend on Yankee money down here, so the photo is not our welcome sign. It's really too small for an avatar, but I love it. A friend sent a slide show of close-up photos of Mars, and that was the last one. Here's the larger version: DC, I admit I have not read Donovan's book, and I probably won't get to it for a long time, but I'm pleased for his success.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 11, 2008 0:00:05 GMT -6
I can't read the entire sign laying on the ground but that first four letter word does not look very nice.
Maybe they are a bunch of martian sailors on shore leave.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jun 11, 2008 4:18:50 GMT -6
DC, I'm sure that many here have read the whole book. (I know I have, twice.) For myself, I'd be happy to discuss the points you've raised if there were any hope of doing so in a rational manner. But once you nailed your colours to the mast by citing the use of adverbs and adjectives as examples of the writer's crimes against humanity, it was clear that your hatred of this harmless, well-intentioned book had gone well beyond the point where rational discussion was any longer possible.
Every LBH book has errors. Every LBH book has statements of opinion, prejudices, and so on. In most, the writer doesn't even attempt to justify his opinions in either the text or the endnotes, having come to the subject with his prejudices fully formed. To Jim Donovan's credit, he arrived at his conclusions after doing the research, not before. You might view the same evidence and reach a different conclusion; fine, that's your prerogative, as it is that of any reader. Statements you happen to disagree with are not signs of moral turpitude on the part of the writer, as you seem to believe; they're just statements you happen to disagree with. It's a case of caveat lector, as always. If one finds a preponderance of things one disagrees with or distrusts in a book, one shrugs and resolves to treat it with caution as a reference. One does not, normally, feel obliged to conduct a jihad-like moral crusade against it.
Let's look at some other books with which one might argue. Gray's Custer's Last Campaign, for instance, with its blatant anti-Benteen prejudice and its elaborate pro-Curley acrobatics. Few of us, I think, would discount the whole book on the basis of these. Or Michno's Lakota Noon. (Not a favourite of yours, I'd imagine, being paraphrases of translations, but regarded by many as a useful tool none the less.) It draws some weird conclusions at times, and even contains statements of untruth (e.g. that Keogh's Indian-fighting experience was precisely nil, which is just lazy research), but one doesn't damn Michno for that; one simply resolves to use the book -- like any other -- as a springboard for thinking for oneself. In no case does one take the writer's "errors", as one perceives them, as some kind of personal affront. With Donovan, for some reason, you do. So, "rank betrayal" or not, I suspect that the reason for the silence of which you complain is that no-one can see any purpose in a discussion based on personalities rather than fact and logic. It's just not worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jun 11, 2008 7:01:28 GMT -6
Having read the book and listened to the audio version more than once, I have to agree with Elisabeth. Jim Donovan has not written the definitive book on the LBH, but then no one ever will. There is no agenda in it and I believe he has arrived at his conclusions honestly as a result of how he interprets the research material he has used. That there are a number of points that our own views cause us to challenge is inevitable, so it is with every LBH tome.
The most admirable thing about the book is that Donovan does not even begin to pretend that he has discovered a great new theory. What he presents to the reader is his own interpretation of the research work he has done. Whether or not one agrees with that interpretation is irrelevant, but it does provide food for thought and obliges us to check our own sources to make comparisons. That can only be a good thing and should be the basis of any worthwhile history book.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 11, 2008 7:17:54 GMT -6
Really? I'm quite sure few if any have read the whole book.
You believe your own hash, E. You're a friend of, or want to be, of the author. Your defense in the face of my (or anyones's) criticisms is to imply they're nonsense, and you try to play the role of calming influence, after you stretch presentation of others' arguments by broadening all terminology. It's surreal, and you do this a fair amount regardless of what is being discussed.
1. I don't cite the use of " adverbs and adjectives as examples of the writer's crimes against humanity," but give exact examples of where their use deforms the facts. They are often crimes in history. "We hold these truths to be self evident," wrote Jefferson cynically with drunken abandon.
2. It is not a "harmless, well-intentioned book." Rather, it reads as if the Olde Farts at the Elderly Custer Groups had ordered it to swing popular opinion back towards the 7th tolerating drunken leaders in battle and covering it up. Stir up the ants for marketing purposes.
3. Yes, yes, "Every LBH book has errors." And most Custer books are jokes and/or terrible. So what? We're discussing this one, which has both pretentions and establishment support.
4. You're of a believing mind to think "he arrived at his conclusions after doing the research, not before." Or didn't read it. For one thing, his references in the end notes often do not support his text. Read about the Martin note. Instead, it reads like the text is constructed to gently push the envelope of current PC about the battle back to the Old Days while the notes don't support him. If you read it, you'd have noticed.
Because of this, I rightly suspect slight "moral turpitude on the part of the writer," and compared it with the crimes of Ward Churchill, who did similar slights of hand. And because it has establishment support, it can affect public perception and it IS the duty of those who claim care about truth to yell about it. Ironic it's only me, so far.
5. Michno is a good example of the same qualities, but his Encyclopedia - just for the listing of actions - is quite handy. His manipulations and incoherence, and devotion to bringing back the Olde Patriotic, Violent West of Indians As Orcs of his childhood, pre-Limerick, has absorbed my attention before. It's inherently dishonest. Gray holds my affection because, for the 450th time, he was dying, he did a lot of tedious work, and while I do not agree with his conclusions, I understand his anger at how Custer had been treated by the Little Big Man enthusiasts, and easily forgive. Further, he TRIES to be fair, and announces speculation as such. His is still the most important book about the battle, errors and all. SOTMS is the best written and most fair.
If you were honest, you'd admit you don't want the book discussed by anyone because you suspect or know that there is a great deal wrong with it. It's a reflection of, and a literary build on, the CSI nonsense that the half-educated find so attractive, and have been reflected in postings here. 'It's science, it must be true!' has devolved to 'Look at all the endnotes! It must be well researched (and true).'
Reading the notes reveals how dubious that assertion is, just like the sources themselves, and how cynically the author knew this about his generally idiotic readership, often the male equivilant of females who excuse reading romantic novels "for the history..." or "foreign description." These guys read Custer books as Classic Illustrated Comics, but can excuse it because it has notes. They don't read, they "research."
Harump.
With log rolling reviews from the very small clique of niche historians, and the fact that it could have been written with just Stewart and the Camp notes, the motivation for this blando written book and the establishment support for it is altogether suspicious.
I listed my grievances elsewhere. Address them. Punk. Go ahead. Address them........
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jun 11, 2008 8:46:18 GMT -6
DC, I only respond to this because I happened to reread the old AAO thread where you put forth the same stalking horse regarding Ye "Olde Patriotic, Violent West of Indians As Orcs" bullshit. As others, including Larsen (who is a more critical reader than either of us) explained, Michno's problems in that book usually stemmed from an over-reliance on secondary sources. Nonetheless, the prevailing sentiment from all was that although slightly flawed because of the over-dependence upon secondary sources, it still served as a perfectly useful resource.
I can't make the time to find the thread due to a work conflict but when I get a chance I'll take a look.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jun 11, 2008 9:58:54 GMT -6
What "establishment", pray tell?
But no, DC, I'm not going to address your grievances, for the reasons I just gave above and which you have reinforced in your reply #10. If you were raising questions of fact, I might. Instead you're once again making it about personalities, or your own unique perception of same. There's no point in entering into that kind of argument, therefore I must respectfully decline.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 11, 2008 10:12:21 GMT -6
Kinda like talkin' to Professor Irwin Cory...ain't it?
S
|
|
|
Post by clw on Jun 11, 2008 10:24:23 GMT -6
My personal favorite was the Les Nessman reference.
|
|