Member Review Shelby Foote

[JerryD]

Foote himself admits as much. And he explains why he chose not to use footnotes in his narrative.

There is a reason that his trilogy is subtitled "A Narrative". He's a story teller. And as any storyteller will tell you, you can't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Not that he is spreading lies, but his trilogy really does focus more on great stories than it does on the history of the war. The biggest example of that is the prominence he gives to Forrest. I think its fair to say no other work on the entire war spends so much time on Forrest. He was actually a rather minor figure in the war and had no real impact on the result. But he makes for a great story.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I think Gary Gallagher is a really good talker.

Eric Foner is a better talker than a writer. His approach to Reconstruction is both insightful, but labyrinth and I think kind of flawed (he's got a Marxist approach in his writing - everything is about the relationship between Labor and Capital). But he's much better on Lincoln or pretty much any other topic he speaks about.

I suggest Clifford Dowdey and Douglas Southall Freeman.

Only if you want two of the authors deepest into the Lost Cause.

I think it's importent to respect that there are other views as my own and respect that. I don't have to agree with that or to like it, but I have to accept it

There's a difference between the Southern perspective and the Lost Cause. Different perspectives don't need to include apologia, propaganda, or myth. Not all opinions are worthy of respect.

There's a famous Asimov quote that applies here.

 

[Pollaco]

I almost feel sorry for the handful that don't like Shelby Foote.

 

[Jamieva]

Clifford Dowdey is almost unreadable and I'm a native southerner. His affection his over the top.

 

[Marco 1975]

Not all opinions are worthy of respect.

I meant views that I can take seriously. Live and let live

 

[Marco 1975]

I almost feel sorry for the handful that don't like Shelby Foote.

I don't think that there are many of these. He was one if these human beeings one just have to like

 

[Biscoitos]

There is a reason that his trilogy is subtitled "A Narrative". He's a story teller. And as any storyteller will tell you, you can't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Not that he is spreading lies, but his trilogy really does focus more on great stories than it does on the history of the war. The biggest example of that is the prominence he gives to Forrest. I think its fair to say no other work on the entire war spends so much time on Forrest. He was actually a rather minor figure in the war and had no real impact on the result. But he makes for a great story.

Geography and a common culture also help to explain Foote's affinity for Forrest.
Foote and Forrest also had the state of Mississippi and Memphis in common.
Shelby Foote was from Greenville, Ms. before he moved to Memphis.
Forrest lived in and was sheriff of Hernando, Ms., the seat of the northwestern most county in Mississippi. DeSoto county is adjacent to Shelby county (Memphis) Tn.
Greenville was a Mississippi river port town, Hernando, about 20 miles east of the river, had close connections with the river. The main East/West road, Commerce street/road, is named after the "port" community closest to, and directly West of the town.

 

[archieclement]

Not all opinions are worthy of respect.

From a historical perspective they certainly are. To explain and understand events they need presented as they saw themselves.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

You are spot on. You should have been around him when had a few. I have very fond memories of having drinks with him in the bar at the Peabody Hotel back when the CW show was at the fairgrounds in Memphis. The other time was at the annual meeting of the NB Forrest camp. He was a VERY fine Southern Gentleman with a great passion for the South.

My ex Father-in-Law said the same.

He was also a Mississippi Delta fellow that moved to Memphis.
While they never were close friends, they were acquainted with each other in the Delta.
They became casual friends after both had moved to Memphis.

Any time Foote's name was mentioned, the Father-in-Law would chuckle and say:
"Shelby is a character ... he loves his Bourbon and will tell stories for hours".

 

[Rhea Cole]

Foote himself admits as much. And he explains why he chose not to use footnotes in his narrative.

For perspective, a mentor of mine has spent the last year preparing a book for the LSU Press. Besides the arduous peer review process, he has spent months on end proofing the footnotes & index.

I confess it always makes me laugh every time someone on CWT says that a historian hasn't thoroughly researched his citations. They have no conception of what historians are really like.

 

[Marco 1975]

I think Gary Gallagher is a really good talker.

Eric Foner is a better talker than a writer. His approach to Reconstruction is both insightful, but labyrinth and I think kind of flawed (he's got a Marxist approach in his writing - everything is about the relationship between Labor and Capital). But he's much better on Lincoln or pretty much any other topic he speaks about.



Only if you want two of the authors deepest into the Lost Cause.



There's a difference between the Southern perspective and the Lost Cause. Different perspectives don't need to include apologia, propaganda, or myth. Not all opinions are worthy of respect.

There's a famous Asimov quote that applies here.

There is a 3part lecture called " Civil War and Reconstruction " , 3 main parts with many Videos for each part. I don't know how he's writing but he is speaking very well

 

[Marco 1975]

There is a 3part lecture called " Civil War and Reconstruction " , 3 main parts with many Videos for each part. I don't know how he's writing but he is speaking very well

With Mr. Foner

 

[archieclement]

Footnotes certainly aren't needed to tell a story, and certainly including factual stories.

 

[Biscoitos]

Joshism said:

"Not all opinions are worthy of respect."

I agree.
I also think that every person has the right of freedom of thought and belief (and opinion.)

But who gets to decide which opinions are worthy of respect?

Some people are convinced that anyone who has a different opinion is just wrong. These people somehow believe that they have a monopoly on the truth and the rest of the world is just wrong, and possibly ignorant.
Where did they get the idea that they are the center of the universe?

Personally I'm okay if someone disagrees with me. It takes all kind of people to make a world.

 

[archieclement]

Joshism said:

"Not all opinions are worthy of respect."

I agree.
I also think that every person has the right of freedom of thought and belief (and opinion.)

But who gets to decide which opinions are worthy of respect?

Some people are convinced that anyone who has a different opinion is just wrong. These people somehow believe that they have a monopoly on the truth and the rest of the world is just wrong, and possibly ignorant.
Where did they get the idea that they are the center of the universe?

Personally I'm okay if someone disagrees with me. It takes all kind of people to make a world.

Certainly when it comes to historical presentation they deserve to be presented unadulterated and without editorial, or it makes the presentation senseless.

 

[huskerblitz]

There is a reason that his trilogy is subtitled "A Narrative". He's a story teller. And as any storyteller will tell you, you can't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Not that he is spreading lies, but his trilogy really does focus more on great stories than it does on the history of the war. The biggest example of that is the prominence he gives to Forrest. I think its fair to say no other work on the entire war spends so much time on Forrest. He was actually a rather minor figure in the war and had no real impact on the result. But he makes for a great story.

Yes, and exactly why I include the term 'narrative' in my post.

For perspective, a mentor of mine has spent the last year preparing a book for the LSU Press. Besides the arduous peer review process, he has spent months on end proofing the footnotes & index.

I confess it always makes me laugh every time someone on CWT says that a historian hasn't thoroughly researched his citations. They have no conception of what historians are really like.

Not all historians are built the same. That's been shown here several times.

 

[DixieRifles]

Until the last years of his life, when his health declined, it was possible for strangers to knock on his door and have a brief chat with him.

The commander of the Forrest SCV camp told me to call Mr. Foote to get answers about his WW2 service. He was friendly and answered all my questions.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

His personal WW II stories were always interesting ... and often hilarious.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

For perspective, a mentor of mine has spent the last year preparing a book for the LSU Press. Besides the arduous peer review process, he has spent months on end proofing the footnotes & index.

I confess it always makes me laugh every time someone on CWT says that a historian hasn't thoroughly researched his citations. They have no conception of what historians are really like.

It depends on the author and the publisher.

University presses tend to be pretty demanding about that sort of thing. But authors are also human so mistakes can happen. And sometimes the mistakes slip through because nobody knows the subject, especially the details, well enough to catch the author's error. I've occasionally seen some errors slip through from reputable authors and reputable publishers that surprise me they got missed (rarely and probably all non-university press, but non-zero).

Other publishers are very limited their editor assistance and proofreading requirements, so long as the manuscript is coherent. Arcadia / History Press has that reputation.

I've seen books with lots of citations, but the author is just kind of sloppy. They've clearly done a lot of work in the research and writing, but they're just lacking in attention to detail.

I know one author who refuses to use citations under the belief that the target audience for his history books aren't the kind of people who care about footnotes.

But who gets to decide which opinions are worthy of respect?

Some people are convinced that anyone who has a different opinion is just wrong. These people somehow believe that they have a monopoly on the truth and the rest of the world is just wrong, and possibly ignorant.
Where did they get the idea that they are the center of the universe?

Personally I'm okay if someone disagrees with me. It takes all kind of people to make a world.

I'm okay if someone disagrees with me if:

A. The subject is arbitrary. I fervently believe Coke is better than Pepsi and pink is an ugly color, but those are personal tastes that cannot be proven or disproven.

B. There's a good reason for the disagreement. Something rational that doesn't have gaping logical fallacies. The disagreement has to come from a place of intelligence, not ignorance. Reasonable deductions, plausible alternative interpretations, sources I'm not familiar with, even a certain degree of personal skepticism.

 

[Rhea Cole]

It depends on the author and the publisher.

University presses tend to be pretty demanding about that sort of thing. But authors are also human so mistakes can happen. And sometimes the mistakes slip through because nobody knows the subject, especially the details, well enough to catch the author's error. I've occasionally seen some errors slip through from reputable authors and reputable publishers that surprise me they got missed (rarely and probably all non-university press, but non-zero).

Other publishers are very limited their editor assistance and proofreading requirements, so long as the manuscript is coherent. Arcadia / History Press has that reputation.

I've seen books with lots of citations, but the author is just kind of sloppy. They've clearly done a lot of work in the research and writing, but they're just lacking in attention to detail.

I know one author who refuses to use citations under the belief that the target audience for his history books aren't the kind of people who care about footnotes.



I'm okay if someone disagrees with me if:

A. The subject is arbitrary. I fervently believe Coke is better than Pepsi and pink is an ugly color, but those are personal tastes that cannot be proven or disproven.

B. There's a good reason for the disagreement. Something rational that doesn't have gaping logical fallacies. The disagreement has to come from a place of intelligence, not ignorance. Reasonable deductions, plausible alternative interpretations, sources I'm not familiar with, even a certain degree of personal skepticism.

With all respect, the comments above do not reflect the rigorous standards that historians are held to.