Rebel Yell

[cash]

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/rebel-yell/

 

[hanna260]

Oh. That was an excellent post. I will definitely have to check out Robertson's book- I tend to be a Northern gal- so don't read as much about the Southern generals, though I have been posting an awful lot about them. I am reading this book- am almost done with it, just about 50 pages more.

It's very well-written; in certain places you can almost see the Shenandoah valley and the screaming and the blood. It's an easy read, it goes down well, and the writing flows together- there's a certain elegance to the writing and the framing of the book. I have so far really enjoyed it- it's biased towards Jackson (I tend to think that Jackson is overrated- shoot me now, Southern members) but what biographies aren't a little biased towards their subject? I think to be fair to the author- he wasn't intending for it to necessarily to be a traditional, comprehensive biography but rather one that looked at why Jackson was such a legend. I don't know how well he analyzed that aspect of Jackson though. He seems to just have constantly brought up "Jackson was legend. This is why."

Another problem I had with it- was as a reader I enjoyed the little asides he made about the different generals such as Jackson's Northern opponents and Jackson's fellow officers- talking about their personality and such- but as a historian, it got a little frustrating, like the McClellan example you gave above. You can definitely tell who the author thinks highly of and who he doesn't- probably not the best way to write a history book.

The book- I feel- glosses over some of the battles- doesn't go into as much detail as I feel other books might and there's definitely a lack of analysis in it- some of his conclusions seem a little shallow. This is a lot of criticism for a book that like I said above- I enjoyed. There's something very vivid when all is said and done and if it's getting people to read about the ACW (it has a ton of Amazon reviews, compared to other ACW biographies), who am I to complain?

 

[Nathanb1]

S.C. Gwynne is a nonfiction author... and certainly you can't get much better than his first book.... and I do agree about the readable style. However, I wouldn't necessarily call him a historian. I got this on my Kindle mostly out of curiosity. My reaction while reading has generally been to think "Hmmm .....Robertson lite...."

But it's readable. I still recommend Dr. Frank Vandiver's Mighty Stonewall.

 

[hanna260]

S.C. Gwynne is a nonfiction author... and certainly you can't get much better than his first book.... and I do agree about the readable style. However, I wouldn't necessarily call him a historian. I got this on my Kindle mostly out of curiosity. My reaction while reading has generally been to think "Hmmm .....Robertson lite...."

But it's readable. I still recommend Dr. Frank Vandiver's Mighty Stonewall.

Oh, yeah. I didn't really mean to call him a historian, I actually more meant me. I tend to enjoy books on two levels as a reader and as a historian- which is not to say I'm a historian either! Edit: Gah that sounds so pretentious. Yeah, it sounds a bit like Robertson lite- from what you and cash are saying. Will have to get that book. Oh, and add Vandiver's book to the pile!

 

[cash]

Oh. That was an excellent post. I will definitely have to check out Robertson's book- I tend to be a Northern gal- so don't read as much about the Southern generals, though I have been posting an awful lot about them. I am reading this book- am almost done with it, just about 50 pages more.

It's very well-written; in certain places you can almost see the Shenandoah valley and the screaming and the blood. It's an easy read, it goes down well, and the writing flows together- there's a certain elegance to the writing and the framing of the book. I have so far really enjoyed it- it's biased towards Jackson (I tend to think that Jackson is overrated- shoot me now, Southern members) but what biographies aren't a little biased towards their subject? I think to be fair to the author- he wasn't intending for it to necessarily to be a traditional, comprehensive biography but rather one that looked at why Jackson was such a legend. I don't know how well he analyzed that aspect of Jackson though. He seems to just have constantly brought up "Jackson was legend. This is why."

Another problem I had with it- was as a reader I enjoyed the little asides he made about the different generals such as Jackson's Northern opponents and Jackson's fellow officers- talking about their personality and such- but as a historian, it got a little frustrating, like the McClellan example you gave above. You can definitely tell who the author thinks highly of and who he doesn't- probably not the best way to write a history book.

The book- I feel- glosses over some of the battles- doesn't go into as much detail as I feel other books might and there's definitely a lack of analysis in it- some of his conclusions seem a little shallow. This is a lot of criticism for a book that like I said above- I enjoyed. There's something very vivid when all is said and done and if it's getting people to read about the ACW (it has a ton of Amazon reviews, compared to other ACW biographies), who am I to complain?

I'm biased because I studied the Civil War under Professor Robertson, but I think his is the absolute best book on Jackson in existence.

 

[hanna260]

I'm biased because I studied the Civil War under Professor Robertson, but I think his is the absolute best book on Jackson in existence.

Alrighty then, adding book #176 on the list.

 

[Nathanb1]

And I meant to say, Mr. Gwynne started out as a magazine writer.... and is a very good one. I have enjoyed his work in Texas Monthly for years. This book suffers from the same "glossing" Cash points out in several spots as did Empire of the Summer Moon (IMO). If you're new to studying Comanches and the Plains Indian Wars..... frontier Texas in particular..... you won't have these nagging issues. If you are familiar with the topic, you'll enjoy the writing but the history.... not so much. Hanna, you're right... it's nitpicking... but....... darn.

 

[Nathanb1]

And I can be unbiased, as unlike Cash I didn't get to study under Dr. Robertson.... but his book truly is the gold standard. It's the one I keep by the bed to answer those nagging questions in the middle of the night.

 

[Specster]

Oh. That was an excellent post. I will definitely have to check out Robertson's book- I tend to be a Northern gal- so don't read as much about the Southern generals, though I have been posting an awful lot about them. I am reading this book- am almost done with it, just about 50 pages more.

It's very well-written; in certain places you can almost see the Shenandoah valley and the screaming and the blood. It's an easy read, it goes down well, and the writing flows together- there's a certain elegance to the writing and the framing of the book. I have so far really enjoyed it- it's biased towards Jackson (I tend to think that Jackson is overrated- shoot me now, Southern members) but what biographies aren't a little biased towards their subject? I think to be fair to the author- he wasn't intending for it to necessarily to be a traditional, comprehensive biography but rather one that looked at why Jackson was such a legend. I don't know how well he analyzed that aspect of Jackson though. He seems to just have constantly brought up "Jackson was legend. This is why."

Another problem I had with it- was as a reader I enjoyed the little asides he made about the different generals such as Jackson's Northern opponents and Jackson's fellow officers- talking about their personality and such- but as a historian, it got a little frustrating, like the McClellan example you gave above. You can definitely tell who the author thinks highly of and who he doesn't- probably not the best way to write a history book.

The book- I feel- glosses over some of the battles- doesn't go into as much detail as I feel other books might and there's definitely a lack of analysis in it- some of his conclusions seem a little shallow. This is a lot of criticism for a book that like I said above- I enjoyed. There's something very vivid when all is said and done and if it's getting people to read about the ACW (it has a ton of Amazon reviews, compared to other ACW biographies), who am I to complain?

I am not far into it but I agree already with much of what you are saying. It is too much about the man and legend and a little too lean about specific in battle.

Nice analysis Hanna

 

[hrobalabama]

I liked REBEL YELL. I am not smart enough to tear apart works such as this. Just because a person is a historian does not guarantee them to be a good readable author. Mr. Gwynne is a journalist. Sometimes they are better able to present a good readable history. For an example, I liked all of Jeff Shaara's historical novels. Some want to pick his works apart.
The reason I read REBEL YELL because it was reviewed and presented in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
When they review a book on the Civil War, it must be a work of some import. I did not find the author to be pro-CSA.
I guess because he lives in Texas, some would think him to have a Southern bias. I have read most of Stonewall's biographies over the years and found all to be enlightening and good.

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/rebel-yell/

 

[Specster]

I liked REBEL YELL. I am not smart enough to tear apart works such as this. Just because a person is a historian does not guarantee them to be a good readable author. Mr. Gwynne is a journalist. Sometimes they are better able to present a good readable history. For an example, I liked all of Jeff Shaara's historical novels. Some want to pick his works apart.
The reason I read REBEL YELL because it was reviewed and presented in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
When they review a book on the Civil War, it must be a work of some import. I did not find the author to be pro-CSA.
I guess because he lives in Texas, some would think him to have a Southern bias. I have read most of Stonewall's biographies over the years and found all to enlightening and good.

I am abou 2/3 of the way thru. Early on, he seems like a flawed vulnerable human being with more than his share of "issues". He was overly focused on his health (some issues which were apparently very serious and real). He was inept, socially, and out of his element at VMI. According 2 the book he would memorize the text book and if the answer read A, B, C and the cadet answered B, C, A, without adverse consequence, he would say the student was wrong. He so infurtaed his charges, in this regard, that several tried to get him canned. 1 student challegened him on a Trig question, which, the student was probably right, but rather than admit it, Jackson would not give him his due. The student was so infuriated he challened Jackson to a duel. The student left VMI, as a result ( think is name was Walker). During the war, the same student was promoted by Jackson and proved to be one of his better officers.

Early on in the book, you lean toward believing he is a greatly flawed human. As the book goes on, his brillance shines thru, perhaps moreso than Lee. He was incredibly gifted in marshall skills. I am not done but I now can see why many consider him a genius.

 

[hanna260]

I am abou 2/3 of the way thru. Early on, he seems like a flawed vulnerable human being with more than his share of "issues". He was overly focused on his health (some issues which were apparently very serious and real). He was inept, socially, and out of his element at VMI. According 2 the book he would memorize the text book and if the answer read A, B, C and the cadet answered B, C, A, without adverse consequence, he would say the student was wrong. He so infurtaed his charges, in this regard, that several tried to get him canned. 1 student challegened him on a Trig question, which, the student was probably right, but rather than admit it, Jackson would not give him his due. The student was so infuriated he challened Jackson to a duel. The student left VMI, as a result ( think is name was Walker). During the war, the same student was promoted by Jackson and proved to be one of his better officers.

The thing that really struck me about his "weirdness" I guess you can say was that ancedote shared in the book- how when people would use the figure of speech "As you know", he would always without fail respond, "No, I don't know." despite how many times he was told that you didn't need to say that!

I think that Jackson as you said above could be the poster child for not under-estimating someone. He blurred the lines of insanity, and huge flaws and genius together. Hope as you are making your way through the book that you still find my review useful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

[Specster]

The thing that really struck me about his "weirdness" I guess you can say was that ancedote shared in the book- how when people would use the figure of speech "As you know", he would always without fail respond, "No, I don't know." despite how many times he was told that you didn't need to say that!

I think that Jackson as you said above could be the poster child for not under-estimating someone. He blurred the lines of insanity, and huge flaws and genius together. Hope as you are making your way through the book that you still find my review useful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Yes, the I believe they are called "colloquialisms" or such. "as you know" , your examples, there were others...and he would respond, "no, I dont know..." Penny Lane, very strange. In those days, the VMI days, the French days, you have to wonder if he was all there. Going forward, I guess he was "there" and then some.

I greatly appreciate your reviews, as well as your commentary.

Sincerely,

Spec

 

[hrobalabama]

I am abou 2/3 of the way thru. Early on, he seems like a flawed vulnerable human being with more than his share of "issues". He was overly focused on his health (some issues which were apparently very serious and real). He was inept, socially, and out of his element at VMI. According 2 the book he would memorize the text book and if the answer read A, B, C and the cadet answered B, C, A, without adverse consequence, he would say the student was wrong. He so infurtaed his charges, in this regard, that several tried to get him canned. 1 student challegened him on a Trig question, which, the student was probably right, but rather than admit it, Jackson would not give him his due. The student was so infuriated he challened Jackson to a duel. The student left VMI, as a result ( think is name was Walker). During the war, the same student was promoted by Jackson and proved to be one of his better officers.

Early on in the book, you lean toward believing he is a greatly flawed human. As the book goes on, his brillance shines thru, perhaps moreso than Lee. He was incredibly gifted in marshall skills. I am not done but I now can see why many consider him a genius.

That is a very good assessment. Jackson is sure one you can't categorize.