Post by El Crab on Jan 3, 2012 1:13:27 GMT -6
I got this book for Christmas (I asked for it). I should preface this pseudo-review with two facts:
1 - I thought this was a book that covered the genre of art representing Custer and the Last Stand. Meaning, I thought it was a history of the various paintings, discussions of aspects and what-not.
2 - I did not finish this book. (I might pick it back up tonight, before I attempt to return it tomorrow, but this is the second time I've put it down in frustration and dismay)
That said...
Extremely one-sided book. It's presented in an interesting format, basically the author created several plays including historical figures, the painters and various authors and scholars, plus a few fictional persons for the discussion. Unfortunately, again, it's extremely one-sided. The author's contention is that Custer is too prominent in most paintings, that the victors aren't reflected properly, etc., and I can't disagree with that. What I can disagree with is how the author goes about discussing it. For example:
The author, through his various characters, complains that white painters make heroes out of the soldiers. Or that they only show the suffering of the soldiers, but not the Indians. So what I gathered from what I read was the paintings that showed the soldiers suffering aren't fair, because what about the Indians that suffered? Except this contention forgets that it was a pretty complete victory, and that the soldiers' suffering was caused by the victorious Indians.
Even Eric von Schmidt's painting, which is by no means heroic, is too pro-Custer. It was at that point that I gave up. It makes me wonder if the author is one of those people who can find an argument no matter what side you're on. Custer and his men are glorified? Why? They lost. Glorify the victors. Custer and his men are shown suffering? What about the Indians? They suffered too! Why aren't they shown in pain and anguish?
The fact that E.S. Paxson having befriended several Indian participants is dismissed. He wasn't there, so his attempt was futile and pointless, regardless of how exacting he tried to be.
Then there's the fact that the author goes after the soldiers as well, as being willing participants in attempted genocide. I get that the book contends that the vast majority of the paintings are one-sided, but must the discussion to correct this go that far to the other end to fix it?
Just before the book takes issue with von Schmidt's work, it talks about White Swan fighting with the soldiers, and states that while he did fight for Custer, Custer likely viewed all Indians as enemies, regardless of tribe.
Combine that with the typos and mistakes, I couldn't continue. Now, whether some or all were intentional, I'm not sure. At one point a fictional character refers to Lieutenant Cooke as Captain Cook, and it could've been a sly reference. Doubtful. Plus, the author later refers to Cooke by his correct rank, but does not correct the spelling.
Calvary is several times spelled instead of cavalry, and at least once on those two wildly different words yet often swapped words square off against each other on facing pages.
The book also leans heavily on Welch's Killing Custer for its battle information (hardly the best choice) and at least once refers to Custer's men fighting for their lives on Nye-Cartwright Ridge, when I assume the author means Battle Ridge.
But finally, I think the biggest issue is the contention that Custer needn't be prominently featured. The author makes the case that Red Horse managed to leave Custer out of it entirely and the art he produced was in no way worse for it. What the author doesn't even remotely discuss is that without Custer, who would remember this battle? The reason it was such a huge deal at the time (and continues to be) is because who was killed leading the soldiers. Without Custer, who would care?
I understand what the author was trying to argue, I just felt it was too one-sided, poorly argued and at times the author just wanted to have a reason to argue.
1 - I thought this was a book that covered the genre of art representing Custer and the Last Stand. Meaning, I thought it was a history of the various paintings, discussions of aspects and what-not.
2 - I did not finish this book. (I might pick it back up tonight, before I attempt to return it tomorrow, but this is the second time I've put it down in frustration and dismay)
That said...
Extremely one-sided book. It's presented in an interesting format, basically the author created several plays including historical figures, the painters and various authors and scholars, plus a few fictional persons for the discussion. Unfortunately, again, it's extremely one-sided. The author's contention is that Custer is too prominent in most paintings, that the victors aren't reflected properly, etc., and I can't disagree with that. What I can disagree with is how the author goes about discussing it. For example:
The author, through his various characters, complains that white painters make heroes out of the soldiers. Or that they only show the suffering of the soldiers, but not the Indians. So what I gathered from what I read was the paintings that showed the soldiers suffering aren't fair, because what about the Indians that suffered? Except this contention forgets that it was a pretty complete victory, and that the soldiers' suffering was caused by the victorious Indians.
Even Eric von Schmidt's painting, which is by no means heroic, is too pro-Custer. It was at that point that I gave up. It makes me wonder if the author is one of those people who can find an argument no matter what side you're on. Custer and his men are glorified? Why? They lost. Glorify the victors. Custer and his men are shown suffering? What about the Indians? They suffered too! Why aren't they shown in pain and anguish?
The fact that E.S. Paxson having befriended several Indian participants is dismissed. He wasn't there, so his attempt was futile and pointless, regardless of how exacting he tried to be.
Then there's the fact that the author goes after the soldiers as well, as being willing participants in attempted genocide. I get that the book contends that the vast majority of the paintings are one-sided, but must the discussion to correct this go that far to the other end to fix it?
Just before the book takes issue with von Schmidt's work, it talks about White Swan fighting with the soldiers, and states that while he did fight for Custer, Custer likely viewed all Indians as enemies, regardless of tribe.
Combine that with the typos and mistakes, I couldn't continue. Now, whether some or all were intentional, I'm not sure. At one point a fictional character refers to Lieutenant Cooke as Captain Cook, and it could've been a sly reference. Doubtful. Plus, the author later refers to Cooke by his correct rank, but does not correct the spelling.
Calvary is several times spelled instead of cavalry, and at least once on those two wildly different words yet often swapped words square off against each other on facing pages.
The book also leans heavily on Welch's Killing Custer for its battle information (hardly the best choice) and at least once refers to Custer's men fighting for their lives on Nye-Cartwright Ridge, when I assume the author means Battle Ridge.
But finally, I think the biggest issue is the contention that Custer needn't be prominently featured. The author makes the case that Red Horse managed to leave Custer out of it entirely and the art he produced was in no way worse for it. What the author doesn't even remotely discuss is that without Custer, who would remember this battle? The reason it was such a huge deal at the time (and continues to be) is because who was killed leading the soldiers. Without Custer, who would care?
I understand what the author was trying to argue, I just felt it was too one-sided, poorly argued and at times the author just wanted to have a reason to argue.
