Post by Melani on Apr 26, 2010 18:13:42 GMT -6
I am not saying there is deception in announcing a review of an unread book--I'm saying it's shoddy workmanship, and that you can't possibly know what you're talking about without reading. it. Your contention that you don't have to read it to know what is says is absurd.
You may be right--it may be garbage. I'll give you my opinion after I have read it. At a guess, I would say that when we do read it, there will be parts that are fine and parts that aren't, but I will wait to pass judgment until after I have read it.
What makes it "clear" to you that others who discuss Donovan's book haven't read it, especially when they say they have read it? For the record, I have never met either Donovan or Philbrick, and have no personal connection with either one of them, other than reading a couple of Philbrick's other books on unrelated topics. I am interested in seeing how he deals with LBH, but if, in my opinion, he screws it up, I shall certainly say so. As I said above, so far it doesn't look promising. But I feel that it is completely unfair to any author to dump on a book you haven't read, which hasn't even been released yet.
Confusing orders: "Mount! Dismount! Mount!" I think that is somewhat confusing. You have stated why you think it isn't; I don't agree. Both Varnum and Hare tried to rally the men with no success. Why would they make that attempt if Reno's helter-skelter charge was the best thing to do? A cooler head, such as Benteen, probably would have organized a better retreat. But of course that is only my opinion.
People spent pages and pages responding to your nitpicking of Donovan's book. As I recall, one of the things you objected to was that he said Tom Custer was wounded in the right hand when in fact it was the left--or was it the other way around? That may be a bona fide error, but I do not think it is important enough to make the entire book of no account. I think the real problem was that you didn't like his interpretation. David Cornut did something similar on his website, when he accused the National Park Service of treason for interpreting the Indian side of the battle as well as the cavalry. Answering each one of your gripes would require sitting down, with book in hand, and looking up each and every item you object to, and then looking up that same info elsewhere. If I did that, you would still accuse me of lying about doing the research. And I also do not buy your contention that research cannot be done by reading, or that one has to have a degree in history to do valid research. If reading isn't research and archeology is worthless, then what do you propose? The RCOI has some valid info, but it was also a CYA fest.
I think the casualty rate would have been significantly lower if the retreat had had any degree of organization at all--if say, it had been conducted by Benteen or Keogh. Reno did not play the part of a good commander in that situation. As I said before, I doubt that he was drunk.
Why are you so fixated on the rig of an 1886 Cape Horner? She wasn't even built yet when this battle was fought--what does it have to do with the topic of this board? Is it just that you want me to say, "Sorry, dc, you're right and I'm too ignorant to do my job"? I'm not going to say that, because it isn't true. If you doubt that, I seem to recall providing you with references that can be checked. Have you done that?
If you are so sure Keogh was in Algeria, or said he was, why don't you go ahead and prove it? See if you have any better success with the National Archives than I have had.
Why do you feel it necessary to insult Robert Doyle? He's done a huge amount of work and put up a great website. You don't have to care or be interested in Keogh, but why do you need to insult him?
As I've said many times before, I have no problem with your opinions. As with David Cornut, it's not what you believe, but the rude and objectionable way you express your beliefs and insult anybody who doesn't agree. What you have to apologize for is not being wrong, it's being rude.
You may be right--it may be garbage. I'll give you my opinion after I have read it. At a guess, I would say that when we do read it, there will be parts that are fine and parts that aren't, but I will wait to pass judgment until after I have read it.
What makes it "clear" to you that others who discuss Donovan's book haven't read it, especially when they say they have read it? For the record, I have never met either Donovan or Philbrick, and have no personal connection with either one of them, other than reading a couple of Philbrick's other books on unrelated topics. I am interested in seeing how he deals with LBH, but if, in my opinion, he screws it up, I shall certainly say so. As I said above, so far it doesn't look promising. But I feel that it is completely unfair to any author to dump on a book you haven't read, which hasn't even been released yet.
Confusing orders: "Mount! Dismount! Mount!" I think that is somewhat confusing. You have stated why you think it isn't; I don't agree. Both Varnum and Hare tried to rally the men with no success. Why would they make that attempt if Reno's helter-skelter charge was the best thing to do? A cooler head, such as Benteen, probably would have organized a better retreat. But of course that is only my opinion.
People spent pages and pages responding to your nitpicking of Donovan's book. As I recall, one of the things you objected to was that he said Tom Custer was wounded in the right hand when in fact it was the left--or was it the other way around? That may be a bona fide error, but I do not think it is important enough to make the entire book of no account. I think the real problem was that you didn't like his interpretation. David Cornut did something similar on his website, when he accused the National Park Service of treason for interpreting the Indian side of the battle as well as the cavalry. Answering each one of your gripes would require sitting down, with book in hand, and looking up each and every item you object to, and then looking up that same info elsewhere. If I did that, you would still accuse me of lying about doing the research. And I also do not buy your contention that research cannot be done by reading, or that one has to have a degree in history to do valid research. If reading isn't research and archeology is worthless, then what do you propose? The RCOI has some valid info, but it was also a CYA fest.
I think the casualty rate would have been significantly lower if the retreat had had any degree of organization at all--if say, it had been conducted by Benteen or Keogh. Reno did not play the part of a good commander in that situation. As I said before, I doubt that he was drunk.
Why are you so fixated on the rig of an 1886 Cape Horner? She wasn't even built yet when this battle was fought--what does it have to do with the topic of this board? Is it just that you want me to say, "Sorry, dc, you're right and I'm too ignorant to do my job"? I'm not going to say that, because it isn't true. If you doubt that, I seem to recall providing you with references that can be checked. Have you done that?
If you are so sure Keogh was in Algeria, or said he was, why don't you go ahead and prove it? See if you have any better success with the National Archives than I have had.
Why do you feel it necessary to insult Robert Doyle? He's done a huge amount of work and put up a great website. You don't have to care or be interested in Keogh, but why do you need to insult him?
As I've said many times before, I have no problem with your opinions. As with David Cornut, it's not what you believe, but the rude and objectionable way you express your beliefs and insult anybody who doesn't agree. What you have to apologize for is not being wrong, it's being rude.