|
Post by bighornbuff on Nov 25, 2009 17:01:41 GMT -6
Even if this was discussed and is in the archives, I still wanted to get recent opinions about it. Is it considered an authoritative book by most of the folks here? I see they think very highly of it and it has rave reviews elsewhere. Anything to be aware of in reading it? Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by bighornbuff on Nov 25, 2009 21:19:15 GMT -6
I read it when it first came out and will be reading it again soon.
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Nov 26, 2009 7:34:26 GMT -6
Still sitting on the coffe table, trying to finish Custer's Luck and Lakota Noon, which means hopefully I can weigh in some time in March. But looking forward to the read.
happy thanksgiving,
sherppa
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Nov 27, 2009 18:39:43 GMT -6
I don't know if the book should be described as authoritative as much as entertaining. The book contains many solemn insights to the battle that were, for me, unknown. For example, apparently the soldiers referred to Indians unknown to them as "John." One Indian gives an account of a wounded soldier saying ,"John, John, please John" moments before he was killed. I thought this to me so very, very sad.
|
|
|
Post by bighornbuff on Nov 28, 2009 13:42:13 GMT -6
Reddirt, good post. That is very sad indeed, that wounded soldier. By authoritative, I guess I mean generally trustworthy. I should have put it like that. Do you folks find it generally trustworthy i.e. factual? I like the way the author bounces around from this to that subject. Far from finding it distracting, I think it is a very good style of writing. Holds your interest even more than it normally would have. Very good book. Am reading Brazen Trumpet now but will re-read Son of the Morning Star immediately afterward.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Nov 30, 2009 13:13:36 GMT -6
Fun to read and certainly worthwhile, but difficult to use as a reference. It should certainly be part of a comprehensive library.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 4, 2009 14:07:09 GMT -6
Yes . . . good book, not really a LBH book . . . jumps around quite a bit . . . it covers a lot of ground pre- and post-LBH. Still good little snippets of info. Terrible index (if that's what you want to call it). The movie (of the book) is the most accurate done to date.
|
|
|
Post by bighornbuff on Dec 4, 2009 14:14:44 GMT -6
It does jump around quite a bit, and that is one of the reasons I like it, Connell delves into areas he doesn't have to go to---one criticism of the book (and one only) is his use of the words "absurd" and "ludicrous"; sometimes he means it in a good way but in others he is disparaging of the culture that prevailed then, for example when he describes what Benteen said during one of the downhill charges on Reno Hill. Among other things, "hip hip". That was a common expression, hip hip hooray, it is still used by some older folks. But Connell calls it absurd-sounding and that shows the usual post-modern view that only what we do nowadays makes perfect sense. With all our myriad problems, we are hardly in a position to judge the people of 1876, who had it together a lot more than we ever will.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 4, 2009 14:43:17 GMT -6
No, that's wrong.
If you reread the quote - page 60 - he explains it just as you explain it. It sounds ludicrous 'today' but might have sounded natural in 1876. That's pretty much dead on.
Further, the quote he references in its entirety as ludicrous today is: "All ready now men. Now's your time. Give them hell. Hip, hip, he we go!" And he points out that it sounds like a Victorian adventure book, which it does. And because the modern reader of 25 years ago might have a dubious reaction to its authenticity, he addresses the issue. He's not disparaging the 1876 culture, he's verifying it.
The other issue - the dubious believability of obscenity-less invocations for competence in any Army outside of Cromwell's - is unaddressed. School children still go 'hip-hip, hooray!' today, so it isn't like that alone is the issue. The British still went 'hip-hip' in WWI, and sports teams still do today.
The term 'absurd' does not appear here, and I'd go so far as to say that where it does, it's appropriate. He's a very good writer, respectful of the times and the people.
I'd like to take this opportunity to again say, despite what others here have called it, it's not a novel nor is it a history book. It's a collection of the stories about the LBH then extant, put into a form recalling the way stories might be told around a fire over a sequence of evenings, with wanderings down byways and returning. It's very soothing, and the people vibrant, and the errors not important, and there are few enough. Further, he trumps many supposed factual 'history' books by presenting the competing theories and saying 'who knows?' whereas Michno and Donovan cherry pick and state things as fact that cannot be known as fact.
It's the best book about the LBH, whereas Grey's Custer's Last Campaign is the essential one for 'study.'
|
|
|
Post by bighornbuff on Dec 4, 2009 15:00:35 GMT -6
I stand corrected on those points. You would have to have the book at your fingertips Besides Grey's book, what else is "authoritative"? Elsewhere in Connell, he does use "absurd" and "ludicrous" in the manner I alleged, but now you are going to make me work a bit, which is good for me, to quote Connell....... What about "A Terrible Glory"? And can anyone tell me the general measurements of Reno Hill aka The Bluffs? For me personally, that will have to wait until I have an opportunity to head West once again.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Dec 5, 2009 2:07:48 GMT -6
The daily language of the 19th century sounds a little weird to us today, but not totally incomprehensible, since it wasn't that long ago. Most of us are familiar with the word "togs" to mean clothing, but I have discovered from reading 19th century letters that it is a shortening of "toggins," which means the same thing, but which I never heard. Spoken language changes continually--Shakespeare was writing in the vernacular of his time, and so was Chaucer.
As I have said before, I personally liked A Terrible Glory very much. I would consider it a good "beginner's book" for somebody who was just starting to get serious about the study of LBH, or for a more casual reader who just wanted an interesting read. It has a few errors, but most LBH books do. I wouldn't consider it "authoritative"--maybe The Custer Myth might qualify for that distinction for it's first-person accounts, but I'm really not sure there is anything I would call "authoritative." To me that means something like "the last word on the subject," and we all know there will never be a last word on this particular subject.
My strategy is to read everything I can get my hands on and then form my own opinion on who I agree with. My view of LBH and Custer has changed quite a lot from where it began many years ago, as I have discovered things I didn't know before.
|
|
|
Post by bighornbuff on Dec 5, 2009 6:27:34 GMT -6
I'm going to order A Terrible Glory from amazon today, already had planned to, based on other conversations here, and you just reminded me to go ahead and do it. I have Troopers with Custer, edited by Brininstool, which I like, but will also get The Custer Myth. When I was a member up til 2005 when I let it lapse, I remember hearing about these books at that time, or some of them, rather, as not all of them were out yet. By "authoritative", I use the word to mean reliable, as opposed to fanciful accounts or untrustworthy accounts. So I should use the word "trustworthy" or "believeable" instead of authoritative, I don't mean by that, the last word on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by bighornbuff on Dec 5, 2009 6:31:06 GMT -6
Melani, just as an aside, some of the expressions of the 19th century have come right into our own day and age. I recall reading where, at Fort Duchesne, Benteen told someone to "hit the breeze", meaning get out of this building, and I recall that my dad, who was from Oklahoma, used that expression now and then and so did others on that side of the family. A lot of those expressions you don't hear anymore were used right up into the mid-20th century and beyond. Not all, but some. Don't you think that we moderns think we are superior in most ways to those who have lived their lives before us? I think that is true, and it comes out in condescending remarks here and there. That is why I noticed it a little bit in Connell, who is not normally like that.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 5, 2009 9:10:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bighornbuff on Dec 5, 2009 10:13:57 GMT -6
Thank you, I meant to take a look at that.
|
|