Confused and Concerned

[cash]

Thank you Cash but no it's Foote that came to mind. I loved his stories and hate that quoting him is so disrespected here. I don't even want to look back at the number of pages. I actually recognize your criticisms of Korda the more I read.

Ah, good old Shelby.

Shelby Foote's narrative is a work of art, completely enjoyable to read.

There are a few unfortunate things about the narrative, but I still recommend people read it for the sheer beauty of the prose.

 

[FarawayFriend]

Ah, good old Shelby.

Shelby Foote's narrative is a work of art, completely enjoyable to read.

There are a few unfortunate things about the narrative, but I still recommend people read it for the sheer beauty of the prose.

Very well said, cash!
I have absolutely no time to comment as I'm on my way through my morning routine, but how can a librarian come away from this thread!!??
I also think you should read what you like. The more you read the more you will know what comes near the real thing. And I'm with @peteanddelmar , history is what happened and not what historians with hindsight make from it. They explain to us what happened, but of course from their perspective, as it is human. Of course the better ones try to be neutral, but can anybody be absolutely neutral on a non-exact subject? Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
Enjoy your reading, @War Horse !

 

[huskerblitz]

Very well said, cash!
I have absolutely no time to comment as I'm on my way through my morning routine, but how can a librarian come away from this thread!!??
I also think you should read what you like. The more you read the more you will know what comes near the real thing. And I'm with @peteanddelmar , history is what happened and not what historians with hindsight make from it. They explain to us what happened, but of course from their perspective, as it is human. Of course the better ones try to be neutral, but can anybody be absolutely neutral on a non-exact subject? Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
Enjoy your reading, @War Horse !

No, there isn't. When an author writes their biases will come out. It is human nature, as you said. Everything from the sources they choose to use to how they arrange their prose indicates how they view the subject matter. And the more you read of a particular event from different sets of eyes (sources) the more one will understand the event and be able to pick out discrepancies or unneeded biases. That is just one reason why reading is never a waste of time.

 

[diane]

Thank you Cash but no it's Foote that came to mind. I loved his stories and hate that quoting him is so disrespected here. I don't even want to look back at the number of pages. I actually recognize your criticisms of Korda the more I read.

Oh, Foote is ok! It's just good to keep in mind he was writing the story of the CW from the Southern viewpoint. He always said he wasn't an historian. I've seen him quoted by people who are historians and that's pretty good. It's a good idea, too, to have a little backup if anybody wants to know where whatever it was came from. Bruce Catton wasn't an historian, either. His Stillness at Appomattox is almost prose poetry.

 

[KansasFreestater]

There is, thank God, no "Approved Authors" list on this site of which I'm aware. There are, as there should be, a wide variety of view points as to the events and people during the Civil War. These we discuss at length. Now just because somebody here says "So and so is wrong" and cites a bunch of evidence that seems to support that opinion, doesn't mean you won't get anything worthwhile out of reading that author, particularly if you are forewarned.

Geoffrey Perret is a case in point for me. Folks around here seem to generally have a low opinion of him -- for some people, he's almost a standing joke -- but I thoroughly enjoyed his biography of Grant. Yes, there are some errors in it, but by golly, it was a fun read -- Perret's writing just sparkles and sizzles -- and I will always appreciate Perret for being the first author who actually explained the basics of military movements in a way that I could understand. (I would catch myself saying things like "Aha! So that's why/how you "turn their flank!") He also helped me to understand some facets of Grant's presidency in a way nobody else had done. And he had some very good insights about Grant's character that I appreciated, even while I think he got some other things dead wrong. So, while Perret's book was neither as thorough nor as accurate, as a biography, as Jean Edward Smith's, I'm still very glad I read it.

 

[MaryDee]

The problem with Foote, from my point of view, is his lack of footnotes (sorry, pun not intended) or bibliography. As a novelist, he also loved a good yarn. Thus when he makes a statement that varies from what others have said, we have no idea where his version came from. I've also noticed that he uses some folklore (such as Buford's supposed repeating carbines and, of course, the infamous shoes at Gettysburg).

On the other hand, Foote is downright fun to read, and I go back to him every now and then. I reread all three volumes last winter (my third time through) while laid up with the flu.

If you read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, you'll notice that he cites Foote as a source quite frequently. So if you get into trouble citing Foote, cite McPherson!

On the other hand, it's a good idea to look at other historians who cite original sources. Even after 150 years, new unpublished sources keep turning up, and a lot of them are being reproduced online. If there's a specific battle or issue that interests you, there will be books about it to balance/supplement Foote.

 

[KansasFreestater]

I agree but after 1200 pages it's a little discouraging to find no one here likes the Author. Believe me no disrespect intended honest.

Well, I don't know, WarHorse. Seems I've seen a lot of people around here cite Foote's trilogy as being one of the first things they read when they got hooked on the Civil War.

The key things are: Did you learn a lot from them? Did you enjoy reading them? I suspect the answer to both questions is yes, since Foote is a good, engaging writer. The man put many years of his life into researching and writing those books, and they're pretty darn good!

I've also learned that there's a difference between books for a "general audience" and books for an academic or specialized audience. They each have their virtues; they're just different, for different purposes.

 

[KansasFreestater]

I generally tend to ignore reviews by journalists because I haven't been impressed by the historical knowledge of journalists as a group, though there are some notable exceptions.

Off topic, but ditto for scientific knowledge. As a former scientist myself, reading error-filled science reportage drives me nuts!

 

[unionblue]

There is, thank God, no "Approved Authors" list on this site of which I'm aware.

And again, AMEN.

In my own view, read 'em all, even the ones that most folks think is a waste of time. You will in the course of doing such, begin to understand why folks demand original sources and documents and insist on tracking down a book's sources.

This is where you will increase your own knowledge and confidence when posting your own views on a topic or a book.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[ole]

War Horse, there is no one thing in here that ought to put you off. We just disagree on a lot of things. And you are not required to plant yourself anywhere.

Example. I tend to like Longstreet and I'm a freakin' Yank. You can't know what you are going to get in here, so just get used to it. Just enjoy the camaraderie.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

It depends on what kind of book you're trying to use for a source too- I'm not talking about you War Horse, when I showed up here had a ditzy head full of Michenor. Still ditzy, lost the Michenor in a big hurry. Guess which member caught me assuming anything he wrote on Texas was true? SO glad she did, might as well been reading Fractured Fairy Tales.

You know, even a beginner level book, ' Killer Angels ' for instance, for all its an historical novel got a lot right. If you find something on the war you like and it appeals to you, hold on to your position. Even knock down, drag out experts are still learning because there are new things to learn. For years it was accepted Stuart signaled Lee ( for instance ) that he'd reached his position Day 3 at Gettysburg. Eric showed us this isn't true, those guns were doing something entirely unrelated to this. Brand, new concept yet the other can be found everywhere. Point being just because experts are quoted doesn't mean it's always infallible information.

Same here on Longstreet to the point where Sear's narrative gets annoying when he begins pointing out Longstreet's ' shoulda's '. Not saying Sears isn't correct, you just hate to hear it.

 

[FarawayFriend]

One more comment on Shelby Foote:
most of us have seen Ken Burns' documentary "The Civil War" where Foote made a wonderful appearance. In fact, Foote gained a lot of recognition from that and on the other hand it was his charming way of storytelling which contributed to the interest in the ACW in some (or even many ) of us. Therefore, I think, he absolutely should have his righteous place among other renowned authors who write/have written about the Civil War. I even think quoting him is okay. If not for proving anything, then for illustrating one's own views on a certain subject.
I found this Ken Burns quote in an obituary on Shelby Foote from the LA Times that describes the effect of Shelby Foote:
"One of the reasons why that documentary worked itself into the bloodstream of this country is because of Shelby"
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/29/local/me-foote29
So, what was good enough for Burns, should be good enough for many of us also.

 

[M.Warren]

I agree and disagree with this. I have read Foote and a number of other Authors that frankly I never quote. Somehow I feel it was a tremendous waste of time.

I've never felt that reading or quoting Foote is a waste of time. He is admittedly a novelist and not a historian. He does have a way of telling a story that will keep the most impatient person glued to him. His facts aren't always "facts" and he never uses footnotes due to feeling it takes away from the story constantly looking down at the bottom of the page. I watched a interview of him once and he said his Southern bias was one of the main reasons he was a novelist first and some may say historian second.(Hes never claimed to be a historian that I know of) He is one that I stay away from quoting in heated discussions though due to the questionable history hes written. You'll never make everyone happy all the time so read what you like and like what you read. Others can take it or leave it but the more information you gain the the more knowledge you gather, be it for personal use or discussion.

 

[brass napoleon]

Thank you Cash but no it's Foote that came to mind. I loved his stories and hate that quoting him is so disrespected here. I don't even want to look back at the number of pages.

I think Foote's trilogy is one of the true greats in terms of Civil War scholarship, and I frequently recommend it to newbies who are interested in studying the Civil War. I really think there's no better way to wrap your head around the whole thing, and in an entertaining way.

That said, there is one major problem with citing Foote - as @MaryDee noted above, the lack of his own citations in terms of footnotes and endnotes. Even the most brilliant, respected historian should not expect us to just take his or her word for everything they write. We need to see where they got the information from. If we can't see that, or if the citations are sloppy or just plain wrong, then it really has no value in an argument or a debate. But that doesn't mean it might not still have tremendous value outside of arguments or debates.

For me, the best authors are those who correctly cite lots of primary sources to support their claims. It's the primary sources that I really find fascinating and often full of all kinds of useful information that the historian doesn't have time or room to include in their work. Furthermore, if we can go directly to the primary source we remove all biases of the historian from the equation. Of course that's not to say that the primary source doesn't have its own bias, but at least that bias is part of the time period we're studying, and not noise that's been introduced in some later time period.

 

[FarawayFriend]

I think Foote's trilogy is one of the true greats in terms of Civil War scholarship, and I frequently recommend it to newbies who are interested in studying the Civil War. I really think there's no better way to wrap your head around the whole thing, and in an entertaining way.

That said, there is one major problem with citing Foote - as @MaryDee noted above, the lack of his own citations in terms of footnotes and endnotes. Even the most brilliant, respected historian should not expect us to just take his or her word for everything they write. We need to see where they got the information from. If we can't see that, or if the citations are sloppy or just plain wrong, then it really has no value in an argument or a debate. But that doesn't mean it might not still have tremendous value outside of arguments or debates.

For me, the best authors are those who correctly cite lots of primary sources to support their claims. It's the primary sources that I really find fascinating and often full of all kinds of useful information that the historian doesn't have time or room to include in their work. Furthermore, if we can go directly to the primary source we remove all biases of the historian from the equation. Of course that's not to say that the primary source doesn't have its own bias, but at least that bias is part of the time period we're studying, and not noise that's been introduced in some later time period.

I admire you for doing this, for looking into the primary sources. I admit that I'm more with @M.Warren , I don't like to be interrupted by constantly having to look at the bottom of the page or even go to the end of the book. So I mostly skip looking there. But then nowadays I'm more reading for enjoyment and to get a notion about what was going on and not for scientific purposes. When I had to do this while studying, of course I also read the footnotes.

 

[southern blue]

I just read Landscape Turned Red by Sears about Antietam. I enjoyed it but I admit the way he kept referring to McCellean as 'Little Napoleon' sometimes pulled me out of the narrative.

 

[M.Warren]

My own son hates all Confederates because they were fighting for a bad cause. The current Missouri public education is slanted so heavily that no redeeming quality is allowed for any ex-Confederate including Longstreet. Sad and narrow minded. People change.

This sort of attitude or action of forcing today's overly PC values on history is a shame in my opinion. It seems as if some people today feel that someone has to pay to todays standards for acts committed over 150 years ago. Even though not one of those people still live. It reminds me of people who watch animals clean themselves and find it completely repulsive. "That dogs licking his own hind end".. Sure he is, hes a dog! Attaching human values to animal characteristics is much the same as trying to attach modern PC'ness to history. It was a different time and dogs aren't people! One of my friends from the service grew up here in NC and moved to Missouri (Nixa) and came back here completely ashamed of his own Southern heritage. He had two GG Grandfathers in the Confederate army. Both were captured at one point. One in late 64, the other in late 61 and soon paroled. He was going on and on about his Grandfather who "fought off a much larger force at Fort Wagner". I actually felt bad to remind him of exactly who those Confederates were slaughtering there. He was in utter shock and dismay, as was I that he'd never seen the movie Glory.. Anyway, enough of my rambling. I hope I made my point clear and didn't get too off topic with the dog thing.

 

[brass napoleon]

If there's a specific battle or issue that interests you, there will be books about it to balance/supplement Foote.

And this is also a very key point. To this day, I still occasionally use Foote for research, when sometimes I recall that he addressed an issue that I'm interested in. But if I'm researching for any other purposes than a friendly discussion, I'll only use Foote as my starting point. Often he'll give me the information that I need so that I can Google the rest and find the primary sources that he didn't cite in the first place. Then I'll cite those primary sources in the debate, rather than citing Foote.

In fact, I use this approach with ALL authors, because no matter how acclaimed and respected the author might be, there will inevitably be somebody here who insists that he or she is biased. With so many primary sources available online these days, I think it's the best way to get a point across.

 

[favedave]

".....if we can go directly to the primary source we remove all biases of the historian from the equation. Of course that's not to say that the primary source doesn't have its own bias, but at least that bias is part of the time period we're studying, and not noise that's been introduced in some later time period." Brass Napoleon, while I generally concur with this, we should also be cognizant that those primary sources are most often produced for public consumption, after reflection and with considerable "On second thought." A prime example of this is consulting primary sources for the cause of the War of 1812. Read Madison's call for war and one would think it was all about protecting American seamen from being impressed into the Royal Navy. Yeah, it was not grabbing Canada while the Brits were fighting Napoleon and hopefully destroying the hated Federalist Party.

 

[1SGDan]

My list of approved authors includes all those I enjoy learning something from.