|
Post by fred on Apr 4, 2008 9:57:03 GMT -6
Since I was one of the original "Doubting Thomases" regarding this book, I will throw my two cents in now... not having finished it... but having read 215 pages so far.
Be prepared for some bridge-burning...
First of all, let me say the book is worth buying. It reads very, very well. That is a tribute to its author and probably something of a pat on the back to its editor.
To ape my buddy, "darkcloud," so far, there is little new in it, but what is in it is well put together. His character "vignettes" are probably the best, overall, that I have ever read. Having said that, there is one exception: Benteen.
Donovan is clearly a Benteen... "dis-liker." I won't say hater, for that really doesn't come through, but the man certainly doesn't like him. To me, the Benteen treatment is unfair, especially since Donovan only takes one side and does not address the issues between Benteen and others. Regarding the Custer relationship, he simply pawns it off as "jealousy." That's typical. But believe me when I tell you, the book is worth it just for the other paintings.
Through 215 pages, there are not a few mistakes and they start virtually from page 1. Some are just sloppy, I think. For example, it a footnote giving the TO&E of an 1876 cavalry regiment, Donovan has all the positions correct, all the numbers correct (there may be one exception to that, but if there is, it is only in the number of privates authorized for each company), and then he totals them up incorrectly. Petty, but an error.
His Davis Creek scenario is problematic and poorly documented; his Reno Creek scenario is very poor in my estimation and for a serious student of the battle, lacks the empiricism necessary to define him as a definitive source. And overall, he makes too many assumptions without either backing them up or attempting to prove them.
Overall... it's a good book, better than I anticipated and I like the way it is written. It has a beautiful flow to it, better than Stewart, better written than Gray (though not nearly as definitive); nicely done. At times, it almost reads like a well-written novel.
As for new stuff... nothing shattering. I'm a serious note-taker and I have added very little to my collection from this one.
I would rank it-- so far-- below Liddic's Vanishing Victory. It's a great starter book and a pleasure to read.
I also reserve the right to change this post or add to it when I have finished the book. Right now, my opinion would be to buy it, if for nothing else, just for the character studies. They are marvelous... like I said, the best I have read, anywhere (except Benteen).
B + as far as I am concerned.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Apr 4, 2008 13:27:27 GMT -6
fred-
I don't know squat about Mr. Donovan or his article, but it's good to see our 'Village Elder' active on the boards again.
Now, if we had a little more word that Tricia is doing okay, all would be well.
M
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 4, 2008 21:45:12 GMT -6
Fredrico, we do not expect any bridges to be burnt, only crow to be eaten by G'town alumni ;D However, my personal opinion of your review, considering myself a friend of both of you, is that it was largely a fair and mostly impartial review which should help others make an objective decision on whether to buy the book. Thanks for the honest review and better luck next year; unless you play another NC team Billy
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Apr 5, 2008 14:52:04 GMT -6
What I like best in the book is the theory about using a company of U.S. Marines. As questioned in the book-Why didn't Custer send Marines on rafts floating undetected downstream to secure a beachhead at Ford B? They were ready to go-but just like the Gatling's never used.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 5, 2008 17:34:21 GMT -6
The only problem is the Indians would have run if the knew the Marines were coming.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Apr 5, 2008 19:25:20 GMT -6
Ranger--You have a great point! Its a well known fact that Crazy Horse never won a battle against the U.S. Marines.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Apr 5, 2008 19:39:46 GMT -6
...and no band of Comanches got anywhere near Parris Island, either.
M
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Apr 5, 2008 19:41:49 GMT -6
BrokenSword--Oh how true! I wonder why the War department sent in the B-Team when Marines were available?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 7, 2008 9:45:47 GMT -6
Wasn't Custer the elite of his times?
I don't think the Indians took the time to tell if a military unit was an elite command, special forces, or commandos. If they wore uniforms they became targets.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 7, 2008 11:55:55 GMT -6
Well, here's installment two of three. I hate doing it this way, but since heaven only knows when I'll be able to finish this thing and when I'll be home again, I have to grab the chance when I can.
I have now reached the 3/4 mark: just under 300 pages.
My criticisms stand, though no other glaring problem pops up-- if I can remember correctly.
Donovan harps on the Reno/drunk business, but to his credit, he cites an awful lot of sources, many of which I did not even knew existed. That's a feather in his cap, because it shows more research than I believed was out there, though-- pardon me, my friends-- a lot of it is enlisted-man driven. Now before your eyes pale over, then turn red with fury, hear me out.
Donovan quotes a man named Donohue in describing Reno's move down the valley. Well, in my normal pedantic fashion, I check out this guy Donohue. It seems Donohue is a K Company trooper and as we all know-- ahem!-- K Company did not go down the valley with Reno. The citation is from a 2000 edition of Montana Magazine, vol. 50. The funny part about this is that a few days after reading this "error," I get the latest Research Review, and a beautifully done article by Bill Boyes uses the same source to quote the same guy. (And then he added another source for another quote: W. Kent King.)
So I double-check. And I am correct. To make matters odder, Boyes says Donohue was a K Company soldier serving that day with M Company. Why? So I check another source thinking maybe I am wrong. The other source has Donohue with K Company... in confinement! The bottom line here is that Donohue-- to me-- never went to M Company, but has popped up as a question mark. Without further proof, I'm forced to keep him with K. What this all does is point up the problems with some of the testimony or some of the stories of a number of enlisted men. To me, it's the "glory syndrome." The individual, years after the battle, loves to embellish the role he played or didn't play.
The only shot at the author-- Donovan-- here, is that it appears he did not check to see where Donohue may have been that day. A simple check of a roster can call a corroborative statement into question.
Donovan gives a very fine rendition of what he thinks happened to the Custer contingent, and I especially liked his C Company scenario and his Ford D trek, though we may differ in some of the specifics. I cannot, however, condemn or blame a person for disagreeing with me... otherwise, I would hate all of you.
After 300 pages-- plus or minus-- I can safely say this: Donovan has put together a narrative that is very similar, though more readably organized than Evan Connell's book. If you don't want to sit there and battle with an author's opinion, you just want to read a fun book, this baby is worth the money and I would recommend it to anyone, especially someone who does not know a lot about the fight. I would have liked him to be a bit less snide or snotty about Benteen (he may yet be-- grudgingly I would guess-- in his last 100 pages), but otherwise his character sketches are first-rate (that would be an A+ and would rank right up there-- in my opinion-- with (a) Bruce Liddic's June 26th work; (b) Liddic"s "skirmish line" work; (c) Fox' scenarios; (d) Willert's overview).
I am continuing to hold at B +, but I think the storm is over and it can only get better from here. I would hate to move him about my opinion of Liddic's Vanishing Victory, but I may have to, just because of the readability and the presentation. That's top-notch stuff. If we can take ourselves a bit less seriously (something I often wrestle with), this is a fun book and it appears I may have jumped the gun with most of my initial skepticism (at the beginning of this thread, not my first "review").
I would recommend this book to anyone at this point, but would include the caveats.
Still B+, and I reserve the right to change it, either way.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 7, 2008 13:02:17 GMT -6
Fred,
Delighted that you've come (a) back, and (b) round! Caveats of course there must be -- no two of us agree on any two elements in this affair -- but I'm delighted that you give Jim credit for an honest book, well presented. (Slightly surprised about your views re his attitude to Benteen; I'm one of the man's biggest fans, and didn't myself see anything to object to ... Seemed eminently fair, to me. But there we go.) The essence of this, it seems to me, is that it's a terrific narrative for the non-specialist and specialist reader alike, with (unlike SOTMS) every assertion backed up by sources. Plus, where arguments/dilemmas exist, he's addressed them in the endnotes. The casual reader can ignore those; the specialist reader can pursue them. A model, really. That's how history should be written, in my view. No agenda; the story, well told; the research laid out and made available to those who wish to go further. Hard to ask for much more, really, I'd say ...
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on Apr 7, 2008 16:31:33 GMT -6
I love the style that it is written in - novel-like historical, 'fact-ional'. It should be the future of all historical novels particularly for those looking for an introduction to a subject.
True, there is little new to the well-read LBH student but it does pull together the battle with the aftermath and the Reno Court of Inquiry which blends well. The court case with references to the behavior of the media at the time gives the reader a sense of the era.
One criticism so far (yet to finish - jumping about between the covers); The constant references to the drinking culture of the time among the officers and other main characters of June 25th. Taken in a modern context, the alcohol consumption as detailed in the book seems excessive. According to Donovan's narrative, I'm surprised that Reno, Girard & Charlie Reynolds, in particular, were able to stay in their saddles, let alone fight any sort of combat. It's too easy to blame alcohol for Reno's apparent indecision when, at the time, having a 'nip' before a battle was not uncommon.
In a 150 years time, historians will be blaming a present day military blunder on a chain smoking General - "His oxygen intake was poor due to the twenty Marlboros he had that morning - clouded his judgement..."
So far, this seems like the book I would recommend to a 'newbie' to the subject of Custer and the LBH.
To be continued.......
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 7, 2008 16:47:00 GMT -6
Amazon is so much fun. I just ordered the book through the Friends' store, and among the offerings listed was Buford, the Little Bighorn, a Bill Peet kiddie book about a small sheep with oversized horns. A friend of mine who frequents Amazon but knows nothing about the battle just got A Terrible Glory, so I had a chance to leaf through it. Looks good. I emailed him part of Fred's review.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Apr 7, 2008 22:49:12 GMT -6
"Read history, works of truth, not novels and romances." Robert E. Lee
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on Apr 8, 2008 1:29:35 GMT -6
Well, Donovan harps on the Reno/drunk business, but to his credit, he cites an awful lot of sources, many of which I did not even knew existed. That's a feather in his cap, because it shows more research than I believed was out there, though-- pardon me, my friends-- a lot of it is enlisted-man driven. Now before your eyes pale over, then turn red with fury, hear me out. Donovan quotes a man named Donohue in describing Reno's move down the valley. Well, in my normal pedantic fashion, I check out this guy Donohue. It seems Donohue is a K Company trooper and as we all know-- ahem!-- K Company did not go down the valley with Reno. The citation is from a 2000 edition of Montana Magazine, vol. 50. The funny part about this is that a few days after reading this "error," I get the latest Research Review, and a beautifully done article by Bill Boyes uses the same source to quote the same guy. (And then he added another source for another quote: W. Kent King.) So I double-check. And I am correct. To make matters odder, Boyes says Donohue was a K Company soldier serving that day with M Company. Why? So I check another source thinking maybe I am wrong. The other source has Donohue with K Company... in confinement! The bottom line here is that Donohue-- to me-- never went to M Company, but has popped up as a question mark. Without further proof, I'm forced to keep him with K. What this all does is point up the problems with some of the testimony or some of the stories of a number of enlisted men. To me, it's the "glory syndrome." The individual, years after the battle, loves to embellish the role he played or didn't play. The only shot at the author-- Donovan-- here, is that it appears he did not check to see where Donohue may have been that day. A simple check of a roster can call a corroborative statement into question. Best wishes, Fred. Here's the link to the Montana article on Private Donohue findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3951/is_200001/ai_n8888817/pg_1
|
|