| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 26 2006 : 9:39:35 PM
I still hold to the theory that books on Custerland can be successfully reviewed with surprising accuracy before they're printed or even written, once you catch the cut of the jib of author, his/her current position, claimed previous employment, military rank.
Nobody agrees with me.
So, I'm curious how the Greatest Warrior the Sioux Ever Faced book about Harrington is coming? Seems like it should have been out, since the overlay of skull on photo was so compelling.
Also, the Big Book of Bogs: A Scientific Inquiry into the Reconstructed 2500 Square Feet of the MTC Ford In 1876....did that hit the stands?
And of course, any bodice ripping romance with Libby and Autie - there's something special about authors who call General Custer Autie - deserves serious attention, and deciding who should play whom in any upcoming awful movies must be discussed at length. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 19 2006 : 10:40:03 AM
DC A new book out seems to prove your point. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 27 2006 : 5:52:10 PM
Complaints work........Here's a direct link.
http://www.darkendeavors.com/boulder_lout/92.asp
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 25 2006 : 6:04:28 PM
Well, let's see how I do.
I present your annoyance a review of Lost Victory, about Custer and Gettysburg. The author has all the impressive credentials needed, and props from respected historians.
Tell me how far off I am. Click the title on the cover page
http://www.darkendeavors.com/boulder_lout.asp |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 9:42:30 PM
MGW--the readers of fiction cannot discern between truth and reality You lost me here. Isn't reality and the truth on the same side of discernment with fiction on the other? |
| wILD I |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 3:27:21 PM
What is the difference between truth and reality?
Reality is truth defined. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 4:19:33 PM
Fascinating. What is the difference between truth and reality? There's a thesis. In any case, there are no self-appointed experts hereabouts. I've claimed the exact opposite for myself.
I've never said there was no truth in Custer books, much less claimed the opposite. There's no such word as proport. I don't consider Mrs. Custer truthful, but she is a good writer.
Deliberate fiction is rarely at its best around Custer and the LBH. I've seen nothing to change my mind on that. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 3:23:52 PM
AZ--
Actually, there is a place for a "Custer Wins" scenario. It's called Alternative History and Harry Turtledove (not his real name), who is a history professor at UCLA, is probably the best in the business. Yes, he teaches history. What bothers me is when self-appointed experts (and there's one at every Custer board) think that the readers of fiction cannot discern between truth and reality. Fiction at its best can inspire the erstwhile reader to research the subject further, and that is ALWAYS a good thing. In my own writing, I try to touch upon truths to Custer's character--within a fictional setting--but I leave opinion to the reader's own involvement with his personality. Some like him, some do not--but there's rarely no reaction to his being. Hopefully some will want to know more about him and they'll learn that only 260 men died at LBH (give or take a few).
But there are nuggets of truth in all Custeriana--even in the most predictable--as much as Dark Cloud will proport to the opposite. It's a matter of going out to the river and panning about for the gold. Or the gold that rings true to them. How about Libbie? Did she not interpret her husband through her rose-coloured glasses? Is she not as guilty as Van de Water in shadowing the Custer truth?
Regards, |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 2:09:15 PM
We're not in disagreement except I'm less willing to accord 'fact' status, I think.
I don't contest the likes of Washington being the first prez, because there is no althernate argument and rather a ton of supporting evidence. But that's somewhat above the levels of controversy. Was he a GOOD President? A GOOD General? Was he one of a kind, or would a number of Americans have obeyed an elected assembly of their social inferiors and walked away four times from complete military control of their nation perfectly willing to make him ruler for life? I don't want to argue either way, but those are the sort of questions where ascertaining fact from opinion becomes difficult.
These are also the sort of questions absent from discussion of LBH and Custer. I tried to install one such, by pointing out that the descriptions and stories of the LBH follow long established literary templates, if often contradictory, almost ALL of which are unknown or unsuspected by those who often write about Custer. I doubt Mr. Cross (author of the thigh squeezer Harrington! The Bestest and Most Bravest Fighter the Sioux EVEREVER FOUGHT!!!) can speak at length about Roland or Arthur or northern European myth but his book, which I haven't read, is likely to draw twentieth hand from those traditions more than from, as we say, 'fact.' He's composing to fill an emotional need of his own and, he hopes, others. He may be correct, but he'd never admit or participate in such a discussion.
These authors spend time trying to fit found artifacts, themselves unproven connected to the battle, to what they consider factual testimony when it wasn't intended as such or received as such by the folks at the time. That they don't think it important speaks to their predictability. I don't exclude Fox and Scott, but they have the cover of excessive detail which tends to hide their basic weakness: an inability to prove whether those cartridges were found where they dropped on June 25, 1876, and to exclude the alternative explanations for their locations and presence at all. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 11:46:23 AM
"That said, history is ALL interpretation, starting with whether or not informational nuggets are "fact." Wright Morris, a favored novelist, said that "anything filtered through memory is fiction," which is mostly hyperbole but fact at its core. People in trauma remember things out of sequence and differently one from the other. The military learned long ago that two men in a foxhole under fire for however long will emerge with different stories but both honest as they can be. Those stories as the years pass will change, sometimes to mesh together and start to include aspects they've learned about the battle since, sometimes to diverge. They are not lying, they're human. The historian can make the decision to believe one over the other, but "fact" without interpretation has already left for the holidays."
I do agree with your basic premise of this thread. That being said I would agree that written history is sometimes left to only observations of persons and oral histories can even be worse through time. I learned also from interviewing people that their perception of what they saw and what really happened can be two different things. They are not lying but actually believe what they think they saw. Relying solely on one persons observation in a court without any other evidence can lead to false conclusions. Eye witness testimony is not accepted as fact in a court.
To me written history first should be something that really happened in the past with a chronological listing of events and explanations of what happened. It is fine to use interpretation in in the explanation. It is not OK to distort known facts. Again my example was in a textbook my son had in high school. It stated that over 600 soldiers died at LBH. It is not history rather it is a fabrication.
George Washington was elected our first and found in history books or is it just an informational nugget taken as "fact." Sadly, I believe more purported written history is as you say rather than what I would like it to be.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 10:49:04 AM
This isn't the point, here, though. And neither of you contest my theory.
Regardless of what is good or bad elsewhere, in Custerland it is utterly predictable, and a review can be written on upcoming Custer books without actually reading them with a high rate of accuracy. That is because 1.) there's nothing new and won't be and 2. most Custer books are about the author and his/her issues, and these are readily apparent by meeting him or reading his previous work in the form of various boilerplate prejudices which carry over into other modern events. Knowing the author's statements on other issues is nearly foolproof tracing his opinion back on Custer. Nearly so, but there are exceptions.
That said, history is ALL interpretation, starting with whether or not informational nuggets are "fact." Wright Morris, a favored novelist, said that "anything filtered through memory is fiction," which is mostly hyperbole but fact at its core. People in trauma remember things out of sequence and differently one from the other. The military learned long ago that two men in a foxhole under fire for however long will emerge with different stories but both honest as they can be. Those stories as the years pass will change, sometimes to mesh together and start to include aspects they've learned about the battle since, sometimes to diverge. They are not lying, they're human. The historian can make the decision to believe one over the other, but "fact" without interpretation has already left for the holidays. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - February 20 2006 : 10:08:53 AM
MGW-With each reading experience, we--as individuals--have to decide what rings true to US and interpret it. All history is interpretation, filtered through our individual upbringings and political/societal outlook. History shouldn't be interpretation it should be facts. Why it happened is open to interpretation. There are history books in schools stating the army lost over 600 cavalry at LBH. That is not history. Once the author stated that as fact you can guess what his statements about Custer were in regards to his personality. Writing a novel is different and the author has free rein. Except a "historic" novel of real persons and events then if the author distorts known facts I feel they are being intellectually dishonest. Someone could write a novel that Custer wins and saves Terry from the clutches of death as Terry makes his last stand with Gibbons dead body at his feet. That would be intellectually dishonest in my opinion. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - February 19 2006 : 10:17:10 PM
Cloud--
With each reading experience, we--as individuals--have to decide what rings true to US and interpret it. All history is interpretation, filtered through our individual upbringings and political/societal outlook. I admit I'm more into the gossipy stuff when it comes to GAC, and despite its negativity, I felt "Glory Hunter" touched upon some truths of the Custer character. "Cavalier In Buckskin" did the same thing. When my Navajo grandfather used to glorify books with beautiful narratives--just like he called virga "dancing rains"--I had no idea of which he spoke. I can now appreciate such a thing and, at the same time, accept its limits. Just like life, writing is not an experience in black or white; it is an exploration in the shades of grey. But I appreciate the new thoughts, the new interpretations, the new questions--just as I appreciate the wordsmithery. We make our individual decisions in the process, and letting entire books go unread because their end theories are predictible forces one to ignore a host of issues. Whether they are good or bad is up to we, the readers.
Ya'ta'he'ey! |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 17 2006 : 08:33:09 AM
The ride, at this point, is as if to the corner drugstore and back. I know the trail and the predictable addition of new steaming muffins to supplant ones fading in memory doesn't improve the experience. If anything ever emerges that defeats that assumption, I'll certainly say so.
The major differences between authors and works you suggest isn't just style but content, history and fiction. You don't seem to feel the distinction important if you note it at all. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - February 17 2006 : 12:56:25 AM
You're forgetting the ride, DC. I will agree that in Custerland conclusions can be predictable, but the words used to arrive there are just as important. Van de Water wouldn't have meant squat to me had his narrative not been so stunning. For every "Cavalier in Buckskin," there is a "Last Ride." There's Gray and then there's someone else. Style matters, or at least I hope it still does. History can be still be an extension of poetry, given the proper training. So can fiction if you give it a chance.
"Thoughts Of Libbie?" Ugh. It causes me to long for the Hellenistic.
Ya'tah'e'ey
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 11:19:37 AM
Well, aren't they all? But see, that's the role of that handy conjunction "or." I didn't say he was British. |
| wILD I |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 10:04:10 AM
The 'photo' is of Oscar Wilde, by the way. Or his brother. Or someone British.
Oscar Wilde was not British I'll have you know he was an Irish fairy. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 03:19:41 AM
You seem to miss the point, here, which is that anything written about the LBH is utterly predictable, and therefore reviewable before it's available. In the increasingly few instances where they are passably composed, they can be read, although there's no real purpose absent new discovery or revelation, which are getting few and pretty forced and silly.
I have about zero interest in fictions or cinema about LBH, although I liked Doug Jones. I'd hope no research whatever was required to conclude that Custer - or any person - was neither all good nor all bad. My remark about Autie is that people trot out that name in forums and in publications that aren't intentionally fictional; it's a signal that the author loves Custer, and probably owns "Thoughts of Libby", which kills me every time I think about it. That's the sort of painting/print that will go over the fireplace whenever they get permission to build on Brokeback Mt. Or Weir Point.
There aren't many LBHA posters when you subtract out multiple ID's, one, and I've been through it with them here, two, and there's only so much interest at my end. Three, I guess. With few exceptions, there's not much new or of interest. The 'photo' is of Oscar Wilde, by the way. Or his brother. Or someone British. That's an expensive outfit for a teenaged school teacher in Michigan. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 01:18:18 AM
Cloud--
You've posted but once at the LBHA board? Frankly, I'm disappointed in your wherewithal and in the purpose of your Lord of the Sith-like presence. There's a wealth of information and disinformation (including my own) over yonder for you to nit-pick upon and golly, it's just there for your taking. Yet you choose to spill and respill your historic tendencies and biases here. Don't get me wrong; I like this board when it's not preoccupied with the to-the- second details of which flea jumped off Barnum the Mule's back at what hour, be it Chicago time or Indian sun time ... frankly, this has all gotten quite dull and boring. The same four people contribute, the same four folks become fodder for your erstwhile brilliance.
I'll agree that there is a tendency within greater Custeriana to use his character as a metaphor to fulfill one's version of The Myth of Life. There have been a lot of words spilt in service to the author's deeper psychological truths. Yet the acceptance of such facts do not--and should not--eliminate a narrative from a full and honest reading by one in search of the book review or a Saturday afternoon's entertainment. As I have admitted, there can be painful moments within this process, especially when it comes to the functional illiterate among Custer experts, but I still feel the writer's work deserves nothing less than one's full attention, even if their modifiers dangle from an oak branch like yesterday's game. Good Lord, DC, at least someone has done something with their research!
As for any search for the ultimate theme hidden within the chapters of what YOU feel is an old-fashioned "bodice ripper," I came into the Custer game hating (the typical Navajo bias, granted) only Kit Carson. For me, Custer research has only proven a variation of Churchill's cliche: a surprise wrapped in an enigma. He weren't all bad, he weren't all good. He strayed, he gambled to excess, he lived the Victorian double standard; he left Libbie nearly broke. I didn't seek anything, nor did I have an agenda. So what is the harm when one can admit to genuine surprise?
An intimate calls him "Autie," or "Armstrong," and TWC screams--in an informal setting--"Aut (generally with a few four letter words attached)!" Would you have really expected something different from such characters? Were they all to refer to the Boy General of the Golden Lock as "Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer, Lieutenant Colonel of the Seventh United States Cavalry?" What a mouthful! As long as the nickname or action rings true to the character's greater narrative, who the hell cares?
Try to visit and reply to the LBHA boarders more often or I'll swear you've not only gone soft in old age, but have fallen victim to its lonely bitterness ...
Ya'tah'e'ey!
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 10:27:17 AM
I've never professed expertise at anything. Authors deserve no attention without product of merit. Or, at least, product. Whether they have craft or talent is generally a group decision by others, and can't be announced and attention demanded.
Fiction has its own issues and talents, but Custerland attracts mostly people professing lust for Truth when their prejudies and need for metaphor to incidents real and imagined in their own lives is painfully apparent. Their take on well-known characters and ordeals fall in locked sets and is utterly predictable, and you can review their efforts without reading them with a high rate of accuracy.
The continuing life and tragedy of the 1876 7th (and its commander) is that it continues to be used on missions for which it is unsuited and untrained. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 02:47:17 AM
DC--
Seems you're back on your soapbox. Let me give you a reason why a reviewed book should be read, cover to cover: the writers' craft deserves nothing less. I realise you're all jaded and an expert, but an author should be granted one's full attention. There will be times one will want to toss a manuscript against the wall, but when the gentle reader pays their quarter, they's take the ride.
As for the fictional rendering of Custer's name, a decent writer should NOT be referring to Autie, Armstrong, or the General from a personal bias--the name should reflect a specific CHARACTER'S point of view. Anything else is author intrusion, whether it is in a "bodice ripper" or the work of Chiaventone, hence my points at LBHA about the term "George Custer." Personally, I don't see the point you're attempting to make. It all comes down to whatever name, action, or emotion that reads true to the narrative, eh?
I see you've brought a touch of trademarked darkness to the LBHA board. Oh boy. |
| wILD I |
Posted - January 31 2006 : 09:48:27 AM
For God's sake DC cut it out I can't drink me coffee with the laughing. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 31 2006 : 09:31:23 AM
All 19th century widows did if they needed to sell books for money.
Don't you think you could write a review of a book entitled Custer: Scourge of Evil! by First Sergeant Ernest J. Hemperhill, USA retired. The website promotion reveals Sgt. Hemperhill served in the 7th during the Desert Storm "era", lives in Idaho with his cats, and lectures frequently at VFW halls and 2nd Amendment Rights rallies "across the nation!" The book will be published in March and contains 196 pages and 114 pictures (taken by the author). The website kindly provides a photo of the good sergeant with a rifle glaring into the camera. The publisher assures us that the "mystery" is "solved" about what happened to Custer as the author proves "shooting at" an enemy, a term misunderstood by civilians, was an accepted military technique of the time. No Custer aficionado can afford not to have Sgt. Hemperhill's work. |
| wILD I |
Posted - January 31 2006 : 05:42:57 AM
If I'd never read her but knew she'd written a book about her time with Custer and told the type, a 'memoir' as it were, and helped by a title, I could accurately review it without reading it.Sure you could DC all reviewers take it as Gospel that widows worship their husbands.
What sort of a memoir would Marge Simson provide us with? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 30 2006 : 5:02:11 PM
If I'd never read her but knew she'd written a book about her time with Custer and told the type, a 'memoir' as it were, and helped by a title, I could accurately review it without reading it. So could anyone by educated guesswork, and they'd be more right than wrong. If Patricia Limerick were to write a book on Custer, I could review it now with a high accuracy rate. It's just the nature of the beast.
But the Limericks of this world aren't drawn to Custerland, and when my generation dies off, that'll be the end of Custerphanaticism. |
| wILD I |
Posted - January 30 2006 : 2:40:26 PM
Well, if I'd never read her and knew what she wrote
What! |
|
|
