Joycepa in 2009, Part 2

February

24. Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis
23. Plenty of Blame To Go Around by Eric Wittenberg and J. David Petruzzi
22. The Night Watch by Sarah Waters
21. Gettysburg, Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill by Harry Pfanz
20. Gettysburg, The Second Day by Harry W. Pfanz
19. Out Stealing Horses by Per Petterson
18. Fighting for the Confederacy by Edward Alexander Porter

January

17. The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society by Mary Ann Shaffer
16. Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin
15. The Bean Trees by Barbara Kingsolver
14. The Worst Hard Time by Timothy Egan
13. Time and Chance by Sharon Kay Penman
12. Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862 by O. Edward Cunningham
11. Fingersmith by Sarah Waters
10. A Soldier of the Great War by Mark Helprin
9. Paranoia by Joseph Finder
8. Mothers of Invention by Drew Gilpin Faust
7. Sun Storm by Asa Larsson
6. Mistress of the Art of Death by Ariana Franklin
7. Wings of Fire by Charles Todd
6. So Big by Edna Ferber
3. The Monkey's Raincoat by Robert Crais
2. The Long Valley by John Steinbeck
1. A Test of Wills by Charles Todd

I was wondering if you were going to start another thread. Glad I found you!

I'm going to post it on the other thread when I get finished carrying everything over that I want to bring over.

ETA: just ran out of time--I have to walk the dogs and get ready for our work day.

I've been lurking on your other thread, so I thought I'd come out of hiding to say hello!

*waves, then slinks back to the shadows for more lurking*

#4: Amber, I wish you would do more than lurk!

OK, I'll try to be more vocal in my lurking :)

OK1 You go, girl! *getting to be her favorite phrase of 2009*

Thanks for linking your old thread to this one, Joyce. I'm following several in this group by starring the thread and I would have hated to lose track of you.

Same here!

Glad you all found me here! :-)

I just finished watching the film version of The Leopard, which is one of my favorite books. The film is superb--Bert Lancaster is perfect as the Prince of Salina. He said it was his best work, and I believe it.

It's a magnificent film of a magnificent book. The scenery is stunning, whether of palaces or of Sicily. The direction is utterly outstanding--the ball scene at the end of the film is I think as close to perfection as you can get in a movie.

We watched the Italian version, which is 3 hours long. soon, we'll watch the US version, which is 20 minutes shorter, and has Lancaster's own voice.

What a film! I think that you could never get tired of watching it.

Joyce, I'd forgotten about that film. I read the book last year, or maybe it was late 2007, and someone told me about the film. Haven't watched it yet but your review is inspiring!

Hi Joyce
I'm simply popping in to say hello and Happy Sunday!

Hi Joyce - found your new thread and giving it a star.

Thanks for the film review. That does sound wonderful - the book was wonderful so I am glad they did not mess up the film. It sounds like it is worth it just for the scenery!!!!

Laura, the film is utterly magnificent, and Lancaster is magnificent. Last night, when Rickie the Flash Cat woke me up with his chasing after Senna, our other cat (and his intentions were evil, believe me, even though he really can't do anything about it), I couldn't go back to sleep, thinking about the film. Lancaster's presence in the film is nothing short of stunning--the minute he comes into the frame, you forget about anyone else. I decided that some reasons why he has such a powerful presence is that he's tall, he carries himself ramrod erect--and he moves very deliberately, slowly--he just radiates a sense of power. Plus the costuming was superb, and the gorgeous tailored clothing he wore helped. And of course let's not forget what a truly great actor he was.

This is a film not to be missed, especially if you've read the book. My only quibble with the film is that the screenwriter gave the best line in the book to Tancredi, when it was Don Fabrizio's in the book.

We'll watch the US version next weekend, I'm sure. Plus there's an entire DVD on how it was made. I bought the Criterion Collection set, and am really glad I did.

Wow - we posted in the same second!!

I am assuming you watched a US dubbed version as I don't think Burt could do the Italian voice with any conviction??

#13: And a glorious Sunday morning to you, too! :-)

#14: The scenery is sumptious, the indoor stuff. And there is the trip from palermo to Donafugata, which was so well described in the book, that is shot in the interior of Sicily among arid, sere hills--utterly magnificent. The starkness of the landscape. Those images stick when you hear Don Fabrizio telling the emissary from Turin that Sicily is old, worn out and longs for oblivion.

One amusing note: the battle for Palermo, between the Garibaldini and the Royalists was very well done. BUT this was 1860 and at no time do you see anyone stop to reload their muskets! Only a Civil War nut like me would notice, and it didn't stop me one bit from admiring the way that was done. The film, after all, is 46 years old.

#16: Aaagh! Well here goes another try.

What we watched last night was the original Italian version, with English subtitles. Lancaster's voice--if you watched carefully, you could see he wasn't speaking Italian--was dubbed over--as was the voice of the French actor who played Tancredi.

The US version dubs over everyone else BUT Lancaster.

By the way, while there were many outstanding performances, the Italian who plays Don Ciccio, Fabrizio's huntsman, is second to Lancaster, in my opinion, in performance. Fabrizio's wife, the Princess Stella, is also superbly acted.

Having discovered and fallen in love with the book last year, I am going to actively seek out the film, Joycepa. Your mention of the ball scene sealed it, as that was one of my favourite scenes in the book.

#19: If so, you will not believe that ball scene--I sat there watching it in something approaching a trance.

ETA: I know that at one point during that entire section I had my mouth open in sheer amazement, because I distinctly remember snapping it shut! :-)

Joyce - big congratulations on your review of Schaffer's book sitting on the profile page in "Hot Reviews".

Karen: I was actually surprised when it wound up there because I found the book hard to review--it doesn't fit easily into any category, and it doesn't describe well.

Very good review, Joyce - I think you should get a prize!!!

Yeah, well, maybe--I know I've been a lot happier with other reviews I've written.

OK, that does it. No more dilly-dallying. I am reading The Leopard this month, and I've added the movie to my Netflix queue.

I looked up the movie on Amazon and it's $70 CDN! So I'll be looking it for it to rent it!

I'll have to check your profile and see if you're on IMdB... I like looking at friends' films just about as much as I enjoy looking at their libraries :)

18. Fighting for the Confederacy by Edward Alexander Porter. Not likely to be on everyone's short list, but the book, which is Porter Alexander's memoirs, is fascinating. Alexander was probably the best-known of the artillerist's in the US Civil War, which in itself is amazing, because normally one does not single out a Chief of Artillery as a notable figure. But he was and, like so many other confederates, wrote his version of the war. It's extremely readable. It's not a complete analysis of the battles--that was another book he wrote--but does give extremely interesting details that are not usually found in more general histories.

This is a splendid example of the terrible dangers inherent in starting to read about the US Civil War--after you've devoured the short histories, you go on to the more complete ones, then you are drawn to individual battles--and sooner or later, you get sucked into the original material. I have quite a few memoirs, including those of Longstreet, Grant, Sherman, Porter (Grant's aide), Sorrel (Longstreet's aide), and probably one or two others I can't remember at this time.

I also had a fit of temporary insanity recently and descended into the pit of madness, shelling out entirely too much money for the diaries of Gideon Welles, Lincoln's Secretary of the Navy. Goodwin quotes him extensively, and those diaries are among the best known. They're out of print, and cost me so much that I have to postpone my next order of books to get over the shock to my VISA.

So--don't say you haven't been warned!

I've been reading at least two books on the war at a time; after this blockbuster of over 650 pages (including notes and index, which I used extensively while reading, slowing me down considerably), I'm going to finish my study of the 2nd day of Gettysburg before reading any other. On to something lighter, like The Grapes of Wrath.

#28: I must admit, Joyce, that I have never thought of The Grapes of Wrath as being 'light'.

I agree with you about Civil War reading, though, because it seems as soon as you finish one another that you have not read presents itself. I think a person could devote their entire lifetime to reading about the Civil War and still not finish.

Along that line, have you tried Patriotic Gore by Edmund Wilson? I highly recommend it as well as April 1865 by Jay Winik, both of which made my list of memorable reads for 2008.

Stasia, compared to plowing through these dense, long tomes it sure is! At least it doesn't have maps that I'm trying to read in bed, checking out troop movements and gun emplacements! I can't even read in bed the book I'm studying on Gettysburg right now, because I have a 3-ring binder with Orders of Battle for all the Confederate and Union armies--which I myself worked up and printed out last year--, Pfanz's book, and another book, which is simply maps of the various aspects of the battle, all lying on my work table, which is where I read and study the maps. Right now, I'm in the middle of the battle for the Wheat Field, for example.

No, I didn't even know those books existed. I'll have to check them out. But this is the year that I've promised myself i would read the books I've accumulated on different aspects of the war. It's been really rewarding, but slow, slow.

Patriotic Gore is strictly about the literature of the Civil War, not battles, generals, etc.

Sounds like your study of the Civil War is an intense one! Do you have a book of your own planned?

Stasia, you flatter me no end, and thank you, dear one, for even suggesting that I might be capable of one. But no--I'm no scholar. I'm what's known as a Civil War buff. To even hope to think about writing anything, I would have to have access to the true original sources, which are all in libraries, many of them in Virginia and South Carolina, for instance. Also, these days, with so many books that continue to pour out on the subject, it's really hard to get a new angle or a different perspective. Goodwin did it by concentrating on the relationships in Lincoln's cabinet. Faust did ti twice--one by examining the roles and attitudes of slave-holding Southern women and in her second book, which is a stunner, on looking at death in the Civil War. Surprisingly, new sources pop up all the time, such as a treasure trove of Lee's private letters to his daughters,but someone like me has no access to those.

In the end, I really am what I do best--a teacher, not a scholar. I do love talking about the topic, and I read voraciously, all things considered.

#32: Well, if you ever decide to head north to Texas, be sure and come and stay with me. Texas was in the Confederacy and I am sure that there are some original sources (of something) somewhere here!

Stasia, you can be sure I will take you up on your offer if the occasion arises! I have very good friends in Corpus Christi and through my blog, have had an extensive correspondence with a very nice, very kind couple in Poteet--Texas is so huge I'm not sure exactly where that is but I think "near" the Houston area. But I wouldn't bet on it! :-)

Joyce, I have read this morning's posts with great interest. Although Canadian, my husband is fascinated by the American Civil War and has read tons about it (although not, I can tell, to the level you have). Once when we were driving down to see his folks in Florida, he suddenly pulled over to the shoulder and began telling our lads about the positioning of troops on a certain hill and that the battle had been fought across the road here, etc. A State trooper pulled up behind us to ask if anything was wrong because you aren't supposed to stop on the roads and an embarrassed Canadian had to tell him that he was explaining whatever the battle was to his sons (blanking on the name but it wasn't Gettysburg). Well, darned if the trooper wasn't a Civil War buff too so the two of them stood at the side of the road with their arms waving all over the place.

If you can stand me hogging your thread yet more: when one of our lads was about 14, he had done something warranting punishment so my husband made him study the Battle of Gettysburg for a week and give him a report at the end of the week! Day one: I don't want to study a stupid battle. Nevermind, go read. Day two: this isn't as bad as I thought as it would be. Day three: hey, did you know that one of the main problems was a lack of shoes? Kitchen table discussions abounded all through the week and by the end of the week, he was able to give a very satisfactory report to his father. I thought it was a terrifically unique "punishment". When his twin brother went to Gettysburg on a school trip, he astounded both his teacher and the guide with his knowledge of the battle, retained from those kitchen table talks.

Sorry, there's your thread back.

Frankly, tiffin, I'm delighted with the post! Hey, hijack away all you like!

I try to be sensitive to the fact that what those of us from the US view as fascinating and vital is not the general view of the rest of the world. Still, you don't have to be French or English to appreciate Waterloo; Gettysburg ranks as one of the most dramatic battles the world had seen certainly to that date, and it remains one of the most studied from the point of view of tactics.

There were at least two interesting battles in Florida; the Union held the coast and tried to work it's way inland (can't remember now exactly where) and were decisively defeated by a Confederate force. From then (1862? 1863?) until the end of the war, the Federals never tried again, but were content to hold the coasts and enforce the blockade. It wasn't a large engagement, but it was decisive.

I find such "punishment" absolutely wonderful--extremely creative and I wish more generally applied! Don't I wish that more US youngsters would know as much about Gettysburg as two Canadian lads now do!!

Any time, tiffin, any time.

*whew* and thanks! The State trooper incident took place somewhere in Kentucky, I think.

tiffin

I really enjoyed your post! I especially enjoyed the story about the "punishment!"

Joyce has gotten me into reading compulsively about the Civil War and I'm finding it fascinating--especially because there are so many angles from which to approach it. Right now I'm reading Confederates in the Attic which is really more about people's present day reaction to the Civil War. But I just finished a fascinating section on the battle of Shiloh in which we find out that even now ideas are changing about how exactly that battle went. I have a memoir of one of the Confederate soldiers mentioned as being there, so now i can hardly wait to get to that book now. And I'm holding back on runing to McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom to hunt up the battle of Shiloh (I did put a marker there) because that's the next book on my list to read. Followed by Team of Rivals. I just wish I were a faster reader! I have collected many more than the nine I need for my 999 challenge and can't decide which one's to put off. I do have April 1865 but now I had better put Patriotic Gore on the list also!

Joyce--it's a contagious disease! Thanks for infecting me. :-) I will never run out of material to read. BTW In that chapter about Shiloh one of the Park Rangers mentions that the new generation of writers will be concentrating on the deaths and carnage of the war--and that reminded me about The Republic of Suffering by Faust that you've talked about. I have her book aabout the Southern women; now I'll have to get that one, too! My consolation is that I hope when he retires this summer I can convince Hubby to read along with me. He used to be fascinated by the Civil War and I hope to reawaken that passion!

Tiffin--Sorry, I assumed that it took place in Florida just by reading that you were on your way down there!

MM41: Unfortunately it's on my old thread, but if you can take the lack of good maps (and I NEVER can), #12 on my list is an excellent resource that the Shiloh National Park interpretive people themselves consult. It's not bad for a doctoral dissertation--quite readable.

There's been enough time and now enough interest in the war to engage a new generation of historians, and it's surprising how new original material keeps popping up! The general trend is away from just dates, numbers of soldiers involved on both sides and who "won". Too often, history is written by the conquerors, and the vanquished have a different perspective. That's something I'm addressing as I write my review of Alexander's book.

Battle Cry of Freedom will wreck your sleep schedule--it's an incredibly good book, and you won't be able to put it down. And I absolutely cannot rave enough about Faust. I think you'll be fascinated by Mothers of Invention and sobered by This Republic of Suffering--and sobered is the wrong word--don't know how to say it, but it's one of the most unusual books I've ever read. And one of the best.

If you find you like memoirs, then by all means, read Sherman's. He gets a little defensive about the nervous collapse he had at one point (though NEVER during a battle like Doctorow, that charlatan, says), and it was never as bad as far as anyone can tell as his enemies made it out to be (or doctorow completely makes up). His writing style is like that of a prissy librarian, but it is easy reading and fascinating. Sherman makes no apologies whatsoever about what he did, and makes an outstanding case for it shortening the war.

Grant's memoirs are very good, too--written while he was dying of throat cancer, I believe--he smoked 2 dozen cigars a day.

Company Aitch by the Confederate Sam Watkins is one of the best from the Confederate side. Also, don't miss Mary Chestnut's diaries.

Just try to live to 125 at least, ok? :-)

I'll stop now myself--there are so many, many good books to read on just this subject alone, and I love the topic with a total passion. I am just delighted to find out that anything I've said has made another convert!!

You go, girl! *she again seizes the opportunity to use that phrase*

And do I know about the fervent wish to be a faster reader!!

Joyce

I bought Grant's Memoirs for Hubby for Christmas so we can both read them. Are Sherman's memoirs in that same American series or is there a title I should look for? I would like to get them because I do think memoirs add a personal touch when reading about war.

Going back to your old thread to check out #12! :-)

If you're talking about the Library of America, yes, they are. As are Lincoln's speeches and letters, in a 2 volume series. I read the First Inaugural again on January 20th.

#40-41. Library of America also has a brand-new Lincoln publication. Read about it here:

The Lincoln Anthology

Hah! Charlie, from out of the shadows.

Sorry, Charlie, I just saw that Doctorow is one of the contributors, and I'm so torqued off at him for his outrageous errors in The March that I refuse to subsidize anything that has his "contributions" in it about the Civil War; he's not qualified IMO.

What, Joyce? A novelist taking liberties with the facts for the sake of his story line? UNHEARD OF!!

Worse,much worse--if that's all it were, I wouldn't mind. BUT unforgivably, he has Sherman (whom Doctorow obviously hates) make some stupid comment about Davis relieving Johnston from the defense of Atlanta and putting Beauregard in his place. WHAT!! It Was HOOD, and Davis handed the 1864 election to Lincoln on a platter with that decision, because Johnston had been holding Sherman off, and Hood came out of the defenses to fight--and was thoroughly whipped by Sherman in 3 great battles.

It was a stupid, one-sentence error and infuriated me when read the book and infuriates me now.

He also for the sake of the story, puts in an assassination attempt that never occurred. Fine, no problem--but where's the historical note? you catch Bernard Cornwell doing something like that? His historical notes at the end of his Richard Sharpe series are terrific, where he explains what liberties he's taken with history.

Whew! i'll climb down off my soap box now and let me blood pressure settle a bit. But from that moment on, I decided I would never read Doctorow again.

#43. Out of the shadows is absolutely correct: I've just spent two and one-half days doing our tax returns.

And I PROMISE to never mention old E.L. in your cyber-presence again.

#44. Do novelists really do that? Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that the news media get facts wrong.

Here's the review of Fighting For The Confederacy:

Porter Alexander was one of the most famous artillerymen in both armies. Starting off as an engineer, he was Lee’s head of ordnance for the Army of Northern Virginia, and then a colonel of artillery in Longstreet’s First Corps; he soon was promoted to Brigadier General, to become the First Corps’ Chief of Artillery. Highly talented and intelligent, an outstanding engineer and artillerist, Porter served in all the campaigns of the First Corps. After the war, he wrote two sets of manuscripts: one, a military analysis of the battles of the Army of Northern Virginia, was published in 1907 as Military Memoirs of a Confederate: A Critical Narrative. The other manuscript, written at the urging of his children, was a far more personal memoir of his participation; never originally meant for publication, it lay unnoticed for decades. Unlike the Military Memoirs, Alexander includes a great deal of description of the places he saw and personal observations and impressions of a great many people, both civilians and military. Given his rank and position, Alexander was very familiar with the top leadership and gives quite candid personal sketches of figures such as Lee, Longstreet, Stuart and others. Unlike just about every other former Confederate who wrote after the war, Alexander was critical of Confederate icons such as Lee and Jackson; he questions decisions made by Davis and by Lee, for example, that he felt contributed to the loss of the war, and Longstreet comes in for his share of criticism as well.

Alexander writes in a very easy style that is correct but easily accessible by a modern reader. He records dialogue as he remembers it, stories of camp life, of the hardships endured by the army. He also comes across as arrogant at times and a typical Southerner (Georgian) of his period, who talks casually about ‘darkies’ and clearly never felt that slavery was wrong. He records without censure the fact that after the Union began using African-American troops in battle, Confederates went after them with a vengeance, killing them when they would have taken white troops as prisoners; at the Crater, it was more or less murder. It doesn’t seem to bother him. Typical of many ex-Confederates, as you read, you do get the feeling that the Army of Northern Virginia never lost a battle and that somehow the Yankees won despite their stupid blunders and the brilliancy and unmatched heroism of the Southern army. There are times when this is so blatant that you want to shake him and yell, “But YOU lost!” At the end, describing Sherman’s march to Savannah, he says that Sherman carried all the slaves away with him, implying that somehow the Union army took away reluctant African-Americans who really wanted to stay with their ol’ massas. The truth is that thousands of ex-slaves followed Sherman’s army,and he gave orders to try to keep them away since he could not feed or take care of the hordes that greeted him with joy at every stop--so much so that he got into political hot water back in Washington with the radical Republicans. Through three-quarters of the book, you get the feeling that the Union armies suffered terrible losses while the Confederates due to innate superiority hardly lost a man. Only towards the end in the fighting that led to the siege of Petersburg does he talk about the tremendous losses suffered by Lee’s army.

He does retain a good deal of objectivity as far as military leadership is concerned. There was plenty to criticize on both sides, but he gives unstinting praise to Grant, whom he obviously admires. He is unstintingly admiring of Lincoln and recognizes that Lincoln was indeed the South’s best friend in the North; he, like other Confederate military leadership, understood immediately that Lincoln’s assassination was a disaster for the South.

As far as the military side is concerned, Alexander gives a great many details of how the various campaigns were planned and how they were carried off, particularly from the point of view of the artillery. These are fascinating, since the general histories, even such excellent ones such as Shelby Foote’s 3 volume narrative, can’t go into such detail especially about logistics. One example is the defense of Petersburg, where his accounting of the digging of the trenches, the placement of artillery, and the increasingly desperate tactics used by Lee to defend the ever-lengthening fortifications with his dwindling army is absorbing. In one section of the narrative, Porter describes life in the trenches; it was a misery of never being able to stand up, of vermin, of baking in the sun. It’s quite graphic.

His maps are in reality sketches, and they are excellent, far surpassing in quality and relevance many of the maps included in modern books on the war that are computer-generated by professionals. Also included are portraits--they appear to be lithographs--of many of the Confederate high-ranking officers, such as Braxton Bragg, Nathan Bedford Forrest, John Bell Hood, Jubal Early, John Gordon and others; it’s about the only book, though, with which I’m familiar that does no have the nearly obligatory portrait of lee, which is just as well. The frontispiece is a portrait of Alexander himself, in uniform.

The book is really the published manuscript with some editing. Since Alexander wrote it while serving in Nicaragua for the US government in the late 1890s, he left many blanks for dates, casualties, names, etc. which he intended to fill in when he returned home to his plantation in South Carolina. He never did. The book remains faithful to the manuscript in that respect; the notes “fill in the blanks” and are quite informative. The text is 552 pages, which means that there were quite a few times when I had to use the index to place a particular officer or civilian whose name cropped up later on.

Fighting For The Confederacy is not a book for the casual reader of the US Civil War, but neither is it simply for buffs and specialists. Alexander's personal reminiscences of the life he led while serving in the army as well as his recollections of the engagements in which he fought are extremely well-written and easy to follow. I certainly would recommend it to anyone who enjoyed, for instance, Sam Watson’s Co. Aytch; it’s Sam on a higher level of the military heap.

Highly recommended for those with something more than a passing interest in the US Civil War.

Joyce, It sounds tremendous. I am beginning (believe it or not) to gather the list of books for my challlenges in 2010 and especially the background books that will go with my Presidential reads for Presidents Fillmore through Arthur. I have 8 books for Lincoln and wanted some for the Civil War so this one will be great!

If you can think of any for the time before the war (I've got Lincoln President-Elect : Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter 1860-1861 ) are there any others?

#45: OK, I had The March on my 'must-read' list for this year, and it is now off. I am sorry I even thought about reading it :)

#48 cyderry: The best one that I know of for the era just before the Civil War is by David M. Potter called The Impending Crisis. While not quite so good as Goodwin's Team of Rivals, it still compares favorably in my mind. It really is yet another historical page-turner. It gives the complete political background for the war. You'll learn abut Filmore, Polk, and especially Buchanan and get a superb account of the issues that wound up tearing the country apart. Actually, there was just one--slavery--but you'll see how it all developed.

For a long time, I had as part of my email signature the last two sentences of the book:

"Slavery was dead; secession was dead; and six hundred thousand men were dead. That was the basic balance sheet of the sectional conflict."

#49: Ah Stasia, thank you for your sturdy support in this matter. Believe me, Doctorow exists in a state of fear and trembling before my righteous wrath.

Actually, if you read my review, you'll find that I think that the novel as a work of fiction is very good. It's just that I feel very strongly, obviously, that writers of historical fiction have an obligation to keep their facts straight and if they deviate from history--recorded history, not speculation--they have an obligation to let the reader know what they've done. What bugs me is that no editor caught it.

In fact, he has a section in there describing an engagement of Sherman's army with a Confederate force in which he describes battle frenzy--the madness that overtakes men that drives them over the line to whole-hearted commitment to slaughtering another human being. It's very, very good. Faust, in This Republic of Suffering, devotes a chapter to it (the phenomenon, not The March.

#50: Joyce, I flat out will not read any more books by Philippa Gregory because of the historical inaccuracies in them, so why would I read one that has such a blatant error in it? I hate that! I completely agree with you regarding the obligation that writers of historical fiction have to their readers.

Hey--thanks for the heads up about Phillipa Gregory! She gets such rave reviews about er works that it's been in the back of my mind to check her out and maybe buy a book or two. Now, I won't.

The real problem with historical fiction not being accurate is that so many people get into history through this medium, which is wonderful! I know that my obsession with the Civil War started in my senior year in high school; we read a section of Benet's poem, John Brown's Body. the one where a young lieutenant is outside of Lee's tent, and Benet beautifully describes the young man's awe and reverence for Lee. I NEVER read poetry but I have the book that I received for Christmas of 1954, and while I haven't read it in decades, there are still sections whose opening sentences I can quote by heart,having learned them, not by rereading, but in the first reading I ever did of it.

So, fiction can be incredibly important and has that obligation to be accurate.

I got into history through the venue of historical fiction as well. I remember distinctly reading through my mother's old Jean Plaidy books and asking myself if that was the way things really happened. Plaidy, I think for the most part, got her historical ficton right - Gregory does not.

Everyone who follows my thread knows that I am constantly referring to the movie "Gettysburg". Well, I don't know the actor who portrayed alexander, but he did an excellent job, as did the screen writer who wrote the role. There's a very brief bit in the movie where Alexander apologizes to Longstreet about his torn uniform. Alexander describes that incident in the book, and how it came to be torn, expressing chagrin that he had no chance to change into a better uniform before he met with Longstreet.

We're having a heck of a regional wind storm. There are gale-force winds on either side of us, in Costa Rica and Columbia; while our winds aren't quite that high--we've recorded just under 30 mph--it's still causing fluctuations in our electricity, which has gone off twice in the past hour. so--if you don't hear from me for a while--I've shut down Freddie.

"Gettysburg" was based on one of my favorite books by Michael Shaara, The Killer Angels. I absolutely love that book. One of these days I may even watch the movie.

I hope you gals down there in Panama hold on tight!

Back again--the winds have at least died down. I went out with the dogs the way I always do--they don't seem to understand that they are much lower to the ground and have 4 feet as opposed to my 5'8" and two legs--and was a little worried at one point about tree limbs snapping off. We did lose power a couple of times after, but for very brief periods.

Stasia, you will adore the movie. It is extremely well done--I don't know of one better. And that includes the battle scenes from "War and Peace" where the director and producers were given the (free) use of the Russian Army, for heaven's sakes, to recreate the battles!

However, I have a problem with certain aspects of Martin Sheen playing lee--I have yet to see anyone look so uncomfortable on a horse, and Lee was a superb equestrian. Also, unfortunately, the actor (Brian Mallon) cast as Hancock was not the best, and there are certain aspects of the way the role was written, just before Pickett's charge, that are ridiculous--but that's not Mallon's fault, of course. But Jeff Danials is brilliant as Chamberlain as is Tom Berenger as Longstreet. The shots of Berenger as he sends off Pickett--and the way he did it is historically accurate as reported by Alexander and others--and the look on his face as he watches 11,000 to 15,000 men march off to what he knows are their certain deaths in a doomed engagement--are masterful.

It also breaks my heart that all you see of the charge of the 6th Wisconsin on July 1, when Reynold's Iron Brigade (under Meredith) saved the Union from losing the fight right then, is just at the beginning, as tehya re mustering just east and south on Seminary Ridge before they charge into McPherson's Woods ond go on to glory. Too bad! Too bad! But there are time limits to every production, and they chose to concentrate on just two of the most dramatic events--defense of Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge--and did an absolutely superb job of it. While I mourn for the Iron Brigade being cut out, those decisions have to be made and given the result, no question that they were the right ones.

I rave about this movie every single time it comes up in any conversation anywhere, and I think justifiably so. I watch it 3-4 times every year.

I bet I could rival Martin Sheen for uncomfortableness on a horse!

Have you read the book or just seen the movie? I was wondering how they compare.

Glad to know you weathered the wind, BTW.

Oh, I've read the book 2-3 times--I, too, love it. I think the movie follows the book very, very closely--far more than most movies, but I think that's because it's relatively easier when you're doing something military. the actor who plays Kemper, one of Pickett's brigade commanders, is truly great, and Stephen Lang is outstanding as Pickett.

The only major deviation from the book--and history--is the way that Dick Garnett, another of Pickett's brigade commanders, is shown in the movie. The book makes very clear that Garnett was under a cloud--he was one of a number of subordinates that Jackson put under arrest--Jackson was ALWAYS putting someone under arrest--and for the worst possible charge, withdrawing without orders which, of course, implied cowardice. Jackson died before Garnett could get a hearing to clear his name. The book makes clear that Garnett went out to die to reclaim his honor. The movie makes it seem that Garnett's wound forced him to ride a horse where he was certain to be killed. The movie goes into, very nicely, Armistead's appeal to Longstreet and Pickett to order Garnett to remain behind, which of course they didn't. But it's a lot weaker reason for refusal--couldn't do that to the man--than the real reason, which was that they knew that Garnett had to reclaim his honor, given southern society. It was one of those idiot Southern things.

Not idiotic Southern things - idiotic MALE things!

Forgive me for going on and on about the movie, but it's such a joy to see something so well done.

Buford's two brigades of cavalry had slowed the Confederate advance down, but they were holding on desperately, praying for Reyonld's First Corps of infantry to get there. The movie is very dramatic in showing when Buford discover Reynolds riding ahead of his infantry and meeting with Buford.

An incredibly dramatic moment is when you see the Black Hats, the Iron Brigade, marching up the road but the movie is absolutely historically accurate when it shows that the first infantry division to reach the increasingly hard-pressed cavalry was NOT the Black Hats, but Cutler's Second Brigade. If you look closely while you watch the reinforcements come in at the rail fence, you know that they're infantry because of the backpacks and blanket rolls they're carrying--and the have the campaign kepi hats, NOT the signature regulation hats, the tall black hats, that the Iron Brigade always wore.

It's details like this that are just a joy.

Just read you last, Stasia--well, yes, but they're the ones who decide on this "honor" crap--we women know better.

OK, Joyce, you have talked me into it. I am going to have to find a copy of my very own - after I re-read the book. Killer Angels was one of those books that as soon as I finished it, I immediately went and got my own copy (the copy I read belonged to the library, and they always want theirs back!)

You've got me wanting to watch Gettysburg again. I had a fairly substantial crush on Joshua Chamberlain in high school. I have an old copy on VHS--I wonder if my VCR still works.

My goodness, Joyce, what an eye for detail you have, based on your readings. The closest I've come to this is hurling a book across the room when people were eating potatoes in King Arthur's time, potatoes being indigenous to North America and not yet known in England until much later (unless, of course, those pesky Vikings had brought them back earlier, all unbeknownst to any of us).

>59 alcottacre: & 61: Hmmm, does this mean it's open season on foibles that can be stereotypically applied to women?

#64: Just a point of interest, tiffin, because I truly don't remember--were potatoes indigenous to North America or South? I am under the impression that they were first encountered in Peru--which, by the way, regularly cultivates over 200 varieties, all indigenous--but for all I know they made their way north and were there when the first whites arrived. I just don't recall (and probably never did know!).

And yes, those Vikings--by heaven they were a clever lot, weren't they? LOL

Stasia and I have been moaning all over LT about how we hate historical inaccuracies in fiction.

Stasia: yes, that's the way to do it--Shaara is so dramatic in his account, and you will love the way the movie follows the book.

Laura: wow, you have old VHS tapes, too? i thought I was the only one who kept the equivalent of stone tablets around! :-)

I bought the DVD set a few years ago--maybe 4--and have always been grateful. There's excellent material on how they made the movie--plus wonderful interviews with the re-enactors who were the "troops" on both sides. One in particular I enjoyed--someone whose grandfather, i believe, was at Getysburg with (I've forgotten exactly which) a New York battery of artillery--and there he was, re-enacting his grandfather!!!

Whenever I think of visiting Gettysburg again, I always agonize if I want to go there during a re-enactment. But I think I would be ruined by the movie--they collected something like 140 cannon for Alexander's artillery barrage before Pickett's charge and I'm certain they weren't all from the National Park--I am under the impression that different groups of re-enactors have managed to obtain their own cannon, for example. almost all came with their own equipment. And I'm sure a re-enactment would never equal the number of people gotten together for Pickett's charge.

Yes, Chamberlain has been greatly glamorized by both the Shaara books and the movie, and he most certainly deserves all the credit he gets. But the one who has lost out in the Hollywood Glamor Treatment has been Hancock. It's just unfortunate. he was known from early on in the war as Hancock the Superb, and deserved every bit of his fame in the Union Army.

Gad, once I get started, there's no stopping me!

I think you're right but now I'm going to double check. One of the Americas.

You know what amazed me and I didn't fully realise it until the Shaara series and book, was that the Civil War took place after photography and was so well recorded that way. It made me understand how recent the war actually was and why it was so seared on the American consciousness.

#54. James Patrick Stuart played E. Porter Alexander in the movie "Gettysburg".

#67, tiffin: I have 3 books, two of them HUGE, of photographs. One book is all of Matthew Brady. The other two are called Photographic History of the Civil War in two massive volumes, the first from Sumter to Gettysburg, the other from Gettysburg to the end of the war.

But I have to tell you that one of my very favorite all-time publications on the war is the special commemorative issue that the NY Times did of articles and photos from December 21, 1860 (a lead article is a report on the South Carolina state convention that voted for secession) to the end of the war. It includes a section on the funeral train that carried Lincoln's body from Washington to Springfield. The articles are fascinating and the photos right from when the action occurred. It's in large format, just the way the paper was printed then.

BUT--and this is what makes it fascinating for me--it carries ads, shipping news--all sorts of little articles from Europe that have nothing to do with the war but are of historical interest now. I'm not sure if it'll come up on LT but let's see--it's called The New York Times Civil War Extra--somehow I don't think that the touchstones have brought up the right one, but I'll check it out.

Nope, it's not--ignore the Touchstone entry.

Oh, my. The DVD set sounds delicious. A possibility for Dad's birthday, Mayflower? (She doesn't mention that she has a huge Dale Gallon print of Chamberlain on horseback on the wall of her bedroom at home.)

#68, Charlie: Stuart (good name for the role!) does an excellent job as does most of the cast. One of the best of the really minor roles is T.J.Gore, who was one of Longstreet's staff--when he rides after Longstreet after the charge is over and is thrown off his horse. He's got great lines and he delivers them beautifully.

19. Out Stealing Horses by Per Petterson. I don't know what to say about this book. I admired the structure, the way it was written, The descriptions of the landscape were very evocative. But I kept waiting for the book to do what it obviously was supposed to do,move me in a certain way, or something and it never did. I closed it feeling unsatisfied.

It may be that the problem is that it's a very male-oriented book. I don't often feel that there are books that can be appreciated more by one gender than the other, and usually those are books by women. Most of the time if I think about it at all I feel that perhaps men and women might get something slightly different out of a particular book. But with this one, I feel almost shut out, as if it's some secret society or club to which I really don't have the password.

Yet every single thing I have read here on LT about this book and most of it by women has been a rave review or at least complimentary.

I'm reminded of what a friend of mine said to me years and years ago, explaining why he didn't like Meryl Streep, who was at the height of her fame at that time. He said that he could never get by admiring her as an actress--he could never get past that feeling that he was watching the most brilliant actress of the time--and actually enjoy or lose himself in the role she was playing. That's how I feel about this book--that I can't get past how well-written it was, the structure, the clever use of jumbling time, all of it, to be actually moved by it. I wasn't.

Weird.

#72: Out Stealing Horses has been on Continent TBR for a while now, so I guess when I eventually read it, I will find out whether I am one of the people the book speaks to or not.

Stasia, after some reflection, I'm beginning to think that I just do not take to the dark side of the Scandinavian soul, if I can put it that way. It occurred to me this morning that I also do not like very popular police procedurals (which is a genre I love) that are set in Sweden, Norway or Iceland and written by Nordic authors. That may be the problem. As I wrote in my review (which I'll post in a minute), the style of the book, everything about it, is really well done, but I just couldn't relate to either the protagonist or his father.

Review of Out Stealing Horses

Narrated in the first person by Trond who, at the story’s opening is 67 years old and has just moved from Oslo to a rural village in Norway. Struggling to recover from twin losses in his life, he reminisces on the summer of 1948 when, at fifteen, Trond spent the summer with his father in a cabin in northeastern Norway, close to the Swedish border. By the time the summer is over, Trond has gone through his rite of passage into adulthood and his life is changed forever.

Petterson has done an admirable job in structuring this story, telling it in a series of flashbacks in which the times are jumbled together. Little by little, not only is the story of the summer developed but also major parts of Trond’s adult life. The landscapes of rural Norway, both in summer and symbolically in the winter of the “present”, are beautifully evoked.

But while the storytelling is superbly done, for me it had only an intellectual impact, not an emotional one. As I read, I admired Petterson’s style, his language, the structure, everything--except that I kept waiting for the book to engage me, which it never did. It was as if I were studying a work in order to discuss it in a class on writing or literature on how to put together a certain type of novel. The lack of emotional engagement continued to surprise me all through the book. It “should” have--a father-and-son story, a coming of age story--but nothing “clicked” for me.

Out Stealing Horses has had rave reviews and I am puzzled by my own lack of emotional response to it. I simply could not relate to Trond or to his father, and I’m not sure why. Still--that’s the way the book affected me--with a lack of one.

I am going to give it a try, but I am not sure I take to the 'dark side of the Scandinavian soul' either since I have minimal reading in that area. We shall see.

I think the problem for me is that all these books are pervaded with a sense of melancholy--none of the protagonists are ever happy. The books are just drenched in it. I must admit that's hard for me--I have a very Mediterranean personality--to take.

I don't have a personality, so maybe I will like it.

#78: ROFL Stasia, I can not possibly top that! :-)

Well, at least my notoriety with Mary, south of the border, is safe. She is probably over there at her computer shaking her head at the two of us.

Actually, I think she is jealous. After all, she only corresponds with botanists! Not the world's most notorious class of party animals! I never hear guffaws or even giggles coming from her corner over the successful identification of a plant 99.99% of the rest of the world has ever heard of before. The sex life of flowers is fairly passé, really, and the literature is dull. so I snicker, and guffaw and bellow, and she says "What, WHAT!" in a tone that sounds remarkably like sheer envy.

The obvious solution is that Mary needs to join the Challenge too. Then she could be having as much fun as we are!

I tell her to get a life, but..... :-)

Out to walk the dogs and see what damage the storm has done among the trees. The worst of it has passed.

I am glad you both made it through the wind safely. Fred, too. I hope you did not lose too many trees.

Interesting comments on Out Stealing Horses,Joyce. I'd heard so many good things about it, and I know my mother has enjoyed other Scandinavian literature (she introduced me to Sigrid Unset) so I gave her this book for Christmas. She told me she enjoyed it, and now I have it here to read. I skipped over your review, so as not to color my impressions any more. I'll come back to it after I've read the book myself. But I'll bet you're on to something...living in the climate you do, it must be difficult to "enjoy" that long dark night sensibility of northern climes. I'm starting to really really get it about now, after weeks of the deep freeze and leaden skies. (Although we did get sunshine yesterday, the air was still brittle with cold.)

>69 Joycepa: I have a similar book with reproductions of both the New York Times and the Charleston Mercury, which is amazing---comparing northern and southern journalistic accounts of some of the same events. I haven't visited with it in a while. Wish I had a "work table" where I could spread out large volumes and maps.

#85: Well, I've been here just about 5 years, and that's long enough to adapt, certainly.

When I was searching yesterday to see if LT had my NY Times publication, your book came up--and I was certainly interested! I'm going to have to look into it. I'd sure like to see articles from the Richmond Inquirer as well.

When we designed this house, we deliberately put in areas like that for both of us, a larger one for me, since my projects are indoor ones and Mary's are not. I have a 6 ft work table across from my computer that is devoted strictly to maps and large books (except at tax time, when for about a week it's covered with other types of far less interesting paper).

#84: Wow, was I wrong about the worst passing! According to the forecast for the southern half of Central America--that's us--this will continue. It's been going on now for 36 hours. January/Feb is always a time of high winds for us, but this is the 5th 'summer" through which we've lived here, and I have never experienced this kind of phenomenon. Just means I haven't been here long enough.

One of the situations with living in a 3rd world country is that except for large metropolitan areas, there is no reliable, official weather data. In November, we installed a weather station; we have a weather site online. We're collecting data for this area and sharing it with others. There is no rain data for our area except for 16 years of records taken by our good friend in Potrerillos, Ricardo Espinosa, which we've posted.

There are some tree branches down, but the worst was that our tarp roof over my potting shed is down, thanks to the wind snapping the bamboo supports. I've tied it down as best as I can given the winds. I also had to spend time getting water to some desperate plants, especially some tender papaya seedlings that are too young to really resist. With our temperatures, the winds are terribly desiccating. Once the plants are established, since they've evolved here, there isn't a problem.

As for Fred--the idiot Labs were outside enjoying all the wind!

Yikes! I hope you have hurricane windows or something. I hope the plants survive. Can you bring the papaya seedlings inside temporarily to offer some protection from the wind? Must be hard for Mary with all those 'baby' plants and flowers left to the elements. I know it would be hard for me if they were books . . .

Hi Joycepa, Batten down the hatches and take care. I have a Lab and she, too, would be out in the wind!

We don't have hurricane windows because we never get winds that strong. Right now, we're getting gusts between 30 and 35 mph. It's also complex here because of the presence of the mountains just "behind"us. The winds do not blow in a straightforward fashion, but tend to eddy and do weird things. We can watch out of our south windows, see one section of a grove of trees whose branches are practically bent double, and the go maybe a few hundred feet away and see much less of a wind impact.
The papaya seedlings are in a semi-protected area. I pulled out two dead ones this morning. Given where they are, I'm willing these days to let nature cull out the weak ones. I've learned from experience that it does not do to over-protect here. One of the oddest things about the tropics is that for many,many plants, they struggle to get established BUT once established, are practically indestructible.

Mary's plants are in the latter category. She's just annoyed that she can't take pictures today! :-)

There isn't a thing I can do for the tomato plants except what I've already done, which is to support the vines.

I'm one of the people who loved Out Stealing Horses, which I admittedly bought because I loved the title. It is certainly melancholy, but I guess I'm one of those people who likes melancholy. While it was certainly both a coming of age and father-son story, for me it was primarily a story about the impact of the past on the present, and that's something that always intrigues me.

I do wish I could have connected with it more, but I really am convinced at this point there is just basically a conflict with my temperament--and I intend to take that into account when considering novels by other Scandinavian authors. There is no question that the book was well-written. I just don't have a lot of empathy with melancholy, I guess. I'm too much the type that grabs someone by the collar, shakes them, and snarls, "Snap out of it, man. Stop pi_s_ng and moaning. Get to it. DO something." My reaction in general to melancholy is "You've got to be kidding, right?"

ETA: Also, for me, I thought that that aspect--the past impacting the present--was the least important of all the different themes. I was far more interested in the way Petterson handled the coming-of-age/abandonment theme, which I thought was extremely well done.

20. Gettysburg, the Second Day by Harry Pfanz. This is a very good book that does an excellent job (with certain shortcomings) of describing the incredibly complex battle that took place on July 2, when the Confederates attacked the Union left and center. The main problem with this book is the complete lack of maps for a good 1/3 of the book, the part that describes the movements of troops on both sides into position. I wound up using, as I had with Pfanz's other book on the first day's battle, Maps of Gettysburg, which were adequate, given that the approach by the two authors was somewhat different and so the maps did not quite serve. Still, they were better than nothing.

I had just finished reading Alexander's Fighting for The Confederacy; you could wonder if they were both talking about the same battle. Alexander has the Confederates as near-supermen and pretty much a victory for the Confederacy; he is quite condescending toward the Union army and its leaders. The truth is quite a bit different. The Confederates fought like demons, to be sure, and Union casualties were greater than Confederate ones, but the Union was still brining its armies into position when Longstreet struck. It was most definitely a Union victory, not a Confederate one; the latter had been repulsed everywhere from the main line, and at the end of the day, the Union position was stronger than it had been at the beginning, and the Confederates had gained very little.

Lee always gets flak for Pickett's Charge, but in truth, his handling of the Confederate Army that day was not stellar. Meade, who always comes out the "poor boy", did a brilliant job all through the fighting.

A good book for those who like to follow military action down to the regimental level and even beyond, if you can stand the lack of maps in the beginning. After that, the maps are quite good and the action is easily followed.

I'm simply stopping by to say hello and to say I'm enjoying all the descriptions of history and Gettysburg!

Hi, Whisper! Likely to continue for a while, since I have several more books on Gettysburg I want to read to sort of round out my focus on that battle.

Gettysburg, The Second Day
Harry W. Pfanz

The second day of the Battle of Gettysburg was a series of engagements that, while connected, still wound up being more or less separate mini-battles, so that we can talk about the action at Devil’s Den, the fight for the Peach Orchard, and so on. Pfanz, in his detailed study of the battle, has written two books; one covering the southern half of that day’s battle from the Union center at Cemetery Ridge to the Round Tops and the other the northern half involving Culp’s Hill and Cemetery Hill. This book is concerned with the southern half.

Pfanz starts off this book as he does the other two with a recapitulation of the beginning of the campaign, from June 3, when Lee started pulling out his armies from Fredericksburg and sending them up into Maryland and Pennsylvania. In each book, he's done it from a different perspective; in this one, he starts out with Stanton’s order relieving Hooker of command of the Army of the Potomac, replacing him with Meade. The first chapter very briefly describes the march of both armies. The second then gives a succinct summary of the first day’s fighting from the Confederate point of view. It finishes with a discussion of the arguments made for and against the attack on July 2. The third does the same for the Union army’s concentration at Gettysburg and the reaction of Meade and his generals to the Union defeat that sent the troops racing back to Cemetery Ridge and Hill.

It’s with the 3rd chapter that Pfanz starts his account of the battle on July 2nd. For the next 100 pages, Pfanz goes into excruciating detail about the movements of the troops, including the critical shift by Sickles of the Union 3rd Corps to an advanced line incorporating Devils’ Den, the Wheatfield and the Peach Orchard, and Longstreet’s equally critical decision to countermarch his units in order to keep out of sight of the Union Signal company stationed on Little Round Top. As more of Meade’s army reached Gettysburg, he and his Corps commanders were busy shifting units around, especially after Sickles’ disastrous decision to ignore Meade’s orders and create the salient in front of Cemetery Ridge. Pfanz goes into excruciating detail--with not one single map! It was infuriating to read without that assistance; I wound up using, as I did with his first book on the July 1 battle, Maps of Gettysburg by Gottlieb. While the two authors take somewhat different approaches to the battle and therefore those maps were not completely adequate, still they served to give me a good idea of all the troop movements in the morning and early afternoon of July . Without them, all that painstaking detail would have been lost on me, since I have no other resource.

But starting with the chapter on the actual opening of the battle, there are very fine maps to go along with a riveting description of the action. And riveting it is. Longstreet struck with all the power of which he was justly famous at a Union line that was badly extended and inadequately defended on Sickles’ flanks and also at a Union army that was not yet fully assembled. One of the reason for the horrendous casualties on the Union side was that units were thrown in piecemeal, as they became available, to plug gaps in the line. That sort of tactic is usually disastrous; in the case of Gettysburg, while it added to the Union casualties, it was all the defense that Meade and his corps commanders had. And in the end, it was enough; the day was a Union victory with the end of the fighting seeing the Federals concentrated, finally, and in a stronger position than they were at the beginning of the fighting, with no portion of the critical Cemetery Ridge/Round Top line having been lost, thanks to heroic defenses. The Confederates, on the other hand, had gained little.

As a sidelight, it’s interesting to compare Pfanz’s account with that of E. Porter Alexander, Longstreet’s Chief of Artillery at Gettysburg, who wrote extensively about Gettysburg. In his memoirs, Fighting for the Confederacy, Alexander makes that second day’s fighting a victory for the Confederacy, sneering at the performance of Union soldiers and units and lauding the Confederates as practically supermen. While it is most certainly true that the Confederates fought like demons, the fact is that the Union soldiers did extremely well under adverse conditions, trying to hold lines (Sickles’ ghastly error) that were basically indefensible. 9,000 Union casualties as compared to 6,000 Confederate ones do not describe an army of cowards.

Pfanz’s research is painstaking and he knows the battlefield well, since, in his career as a historian for the National Park Service, he spent 10 years at Gettysburg. His writing is very good. The pity of it is that the first part of the book is marred by a complete lack of maps; otherwise, it is a superior account, with excerpts from letters, memoirs, and other personal accounts of soldiers on both sides, from the highest officers to the lowest privates, of the battle. If you can lay your hands on appropriate maps, I would recommend this book unreservedly. Even then, if you can stand not knowing what Pfanz is talking about for about 100 pages out of this 600 page book, then read it anyway.

#95: Even then, if you can stand not knowing what Pfanz is talking about for about 100 pages out of this 600 page book, then read it anyway.

Yes, ma'am! *returning smart salute*

Hey, Stasia--just read on your thread that you've been sick--how are you feeling now?

Yes, ma'am!*returning smart salute* Got that one right! Nice to know that there are at least some out there who know the proper responses.

Hi Joyce - enjoying the Gettysburg reviews!

#97: I am feeling better, thank you for asking. Colds and flu are going around in my area and everyone in the family has been sick for the last week or so, but we are gradually improving.

#98 Jill: I'm reading the 3rd volume that Pfanz wrote, on the battle for Culp's and Cemetery Hill on July 2--it's actually better than the other two so far--and I almost fell dead from shock, he has a map in the first part!!!!!!

Another book, on Hancock's defense of the Union center--I absolutely can't believe it, but it has NO MAPS AT ALL. Got to read that one with my gottlieb book of maps.

Stasia: glad to hear that you're all getting better. Our worst time is coming up--May is a bad, bad month around here.

This is off the beaten track, but for those who might be interested:

last night we went to a concert given by a music school in DAvid. We live in a rural province; David, with less than 100,000 people, is the third largest city in Panamá, and is our closet town of any size--about 20 miles away. Just for background.

The concert was held in the library in Potrerillos Arriba. there were a variety of performers, but 3 were utterly outstanding. I've just put up a 5 minute video of 9 year old Manuel Zanguinos of David, playing the piano--we think it's two short Mozart pieces.

As soon as I get a chance--and I am swamped here for a while--I'll put up videos of 12 or 13 year old Ricardo Pinzón from Potrerillos Arriba on the electric guitar, and a female singer, in ensemble, who was a show-stopper.

The link ishere.

Thanks for posting this. I cannot wait to see the other videos.

I'm uploading the Ricardo Pinzón video now, but it will take at least an hour, given our Internet speed.

It was an incredible concert. Some were little girls just starting off, two were young men who would do better learning some other art form, and the rest were good to outstanding.

Thanks Joycepa!

I always enjoy your posts, even though I don't comment every day. I check your messages and enjoy the quick, witty banter.

I loved the smile on his face as he played.

I thought his smile lit up his face as he finished and took his leave.

He's even playing the sax and does it well. We just couldn't get over him--he's just this little kid!

Here's Ricardo

#101: Wow! I want to give the lnk to Amandameale, who teaches music. Didn't you love how his tongue peeps out now and then? I have a feeling we'll be hearing more from this young man one day.

Ricardo is already better than a lot of pros I've seen. What talent.

Clearly Ricardo isn't from a poor family, but he's not from a wealthy one, either. He lives right in the pueblo, just behind our one and only small grocery store--a mom and pop affair.

#108, tiffin: I have 45 minutes of footage, and am just putting up the highlights. However, I should put up the one or one and a half minutes or so of the head of the school in David, who is very nice. He plays guitar, not very well, really, but obviously his talent is in teaching. Both Ricardo and Manuel are graduates of this school.

I watched him while he accompanied some of the youngsters. Didn't matter that the other electric guitarist really should find some other form of creative expression, or that the trumpet player was flat most of the time--the teacher had this perfectly contented look on his face as if he were doing exactly what he wanted to do and the results were exactly as they should be. It was very impressive.

What's interesting is that at the end of the concert, he urged all of us who knew young people with talent or desire to play musical instruments to have them contact the school. He specifically mentioned that there was help available for those who didn't have the money. It may be that that's how Ricardo got his start. I have good friends who live about 2 blocks away from Ricardo, and they will know what the scoop is. In fact, the only reason why we went last night is that the daughter of our dear friend runs the Infoplaza, which includes the library; she called us at 6 pm and invited us to come. We were the only Americans there.

So, I'm posting these videos as fast as I can get them uploaded to YouTube on my blog.

#101 The Pianist (Manuel)

What a wonderful performance from a very talented youngster who is obviously well taught. Just a delight! I think the piece is a 2 movement Sonatina -- can't place the composer off hand, but definitely classical period. I've taught that piece before, but not recently. I've reached the age where I can hum the music but cant remember the name of the composer! Thank you so much for sharing! You made my evening.

#107 The Guitarist (Ricardo)

This was also a very talented performer. It must have been a great concert.

#112: Mary and I have been arguing over whether or not it was a Mozart composition. I didn't think it was quite right for Mozart, but the only other composer that even came to mind was Haydn, and I didn't think it was Haydn. she finally convinced me that it was Mozart. If you happen to remember the composer, let me know!

I'm having a terrible time uploading the finale. don't know what's wrong.

Yes, it was a great evening. I love recitals like that.

OK, I see that the Neryeth Torres link didn't take the first time so here it is again.

21. Gettysburg, Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill by Harry Pfanz. Probably the most accessible of Pfanz's 3 books on the Gettysburg battle. so much attention has been paid to Longstreet's attack on the Round Tops and Devil's Den, etc on Cemetery Ridge and Pickett's Charge, that you tend to believe nothing happened at the north end. Instead there was quite a vicious little battle there, July 2-3. This book does an excellent job of describing the action. And, wondrous to note--there are adequate maps!! They're even good ones!!!

Have been enjoying your delight over the good maps in your reading. Glad to know I'm not the only one who gets excited by such simple things.

It's just that it's just a tad difficult to figure out what an author is talking about, in terms of topography and troop movements--without an adequate map!

This book was good, though--with good maps, I could read in bead instead of having to sit at my work table, with a book of maps on one hand, trying to figure out who went where when.

Fun part about this book is that he approached it very differently from the first two--he started off by focusing on the two generals who were most involved--Oliver Howard of the Union Eleventh Corps, and Richard Ewell of the confederate second Corps. The way he did his summary of the first day's fighting was excellent. He did it differently in each of the two books, and each time it was most revealing.

22. The Night Watch by Sarah Waters. Yes, believe it or not, I do read something else besides US Civil War books!

I marvel at Waters. She's done something a little different with each of her first 3 books, and then she goes ahead and does something radically different with her 4th. This is an excellent book, quite unlike her other three, and hard to pin down. Mostly it's about "mismatched affections" about "not loving the people you ought to love". Set mostly against WWII London, it really does a terrific job of describing the impact of the nightly raids on how the ordinary, everyday Londoner lived. Plus she does a fantastic job of exploring heartbreak and jealousy, obsessive love--and in the most unusual fashion.

This is her most sophisticated book--she just keeps getting better.

I also think it would be nice if I got out of the habit, at least temporarily, of reading 500-700 page blockbuster books! I really need to hunt up a nice trashy police procedural. Instead I'm stuck with finishing Arrowsmith which is so bad I feel like it calls the Pulitzer Prize into question.

Hi Joycepa, I just finished Fingersmith and really loved it. The Night Watch is on a nearby table and I hope to get to it soon.

The Night Watch is very different but it's still Sarah Waters and she still tells a cracking good story. What really impresses me is how this author grows with every book. She isn't afraid to try radically new things.

I put The Night Watch on the Continent. The only one of Waters' books that I have read is Fingersmith, which I enjoyed, so I am looking forward to reading The Night Watch. Now, if I can only locate a copy - my local library does not have that one, unfortunately.

Just in case anyone thins it can't happen again:

here is an article in today's NY Times about the current drought in Texas.

This is due to La Niña condition which should be short-term but the problems faced are the same.

We're feeling it here as well--this is our summer and it was immediately obvious in December that we were hotter and drier than last year. I spent yesterday watering fruit trees, pineapples, papayas, and other plants that are clearly suffering--plants that I put in because they are drought-resistant. Normally I'd do the trees every week and the pineapples every two weeks, but I'm on a twice a week schedule with the fruit. Our bananas, which normally need no care whatsoever except to cut down the shoots when they get to be too many, are not filling out the way they should because of a lack of water.

Gettysburg: Culp’s Hill and Cemetery Hill
Harry W. Pfanz

In this third book of his trilogy on the Battle of Gettysburg, Pfanz focuses on a very little-recognized aspect of the engagement--the fight for Culp’s Hill and Cemetery Hill on the northern part of the battlefield July 2-3. Thanks to Killer Angels and the movie “Gettysburg”, Longstreet, Chamberlain, Pickett and others who participated in the fighting for the south and center part of the Union line are practically household names and rightly so. But hardly anyone recognizes the names of Oliver Howard and Richard Ewell as a result.

Yet there was quite a vicious fight on both days for control of what was, really, the keystone to the Union line--Cemetery Hill and its immediate neighbor on the ridge, Culp’s Hill. Confederate losses in particular were extremely heavy as General Johnson ordered his units to attack what were impregnable breastworks on Cemetery Hill. The Confederates occupied a portion of Culp’s Hill for a while but were eventually driven off.

If that were all the book covered--the fighting on those two days--it would be interesting enough. But from the beginning Pfanz makes the account a page-turner, by focusing on the two commanders involved--Confederate Richard Ewell and Union Oliver Howard, and by recapping the fighting on July 1st that affected the Union positions on the two critical hills. He also answers a question that has been raised many times--why did Ewell, on July 1, not occupy Cemetery Hill immediately?

For those who read the book or saw the movie, which very dramatically depicted the conversation, there is a scene between Isaac Trimble and Robert Lee, where Trimble rants on about Ewell’s failure to take the hill. He makes it clear that Ewelll was paralyzed or something and didn’t act when he should have. It is particularly well-acted in the movie, and we are left in no doubt that Ewell was the cause of the Confederate failure to follow up their victory of July 1.

Pfanz discusses the reorganization of Lee’s army just prior to the Gettysburg campaign and shows that Ewell--who was taking over Stonewall Jackson’s old 2nd Corps--had never served directly under Lee before, but only under Jackson, who was a very, very different commander. One problem, then, was that given the loosey-goosey way Lee gave orders--very different from Jackson who gave precise orders and had the habit of putting under arrest anyone who didn’t follow them the way he thought they should have-- Ewell really wasn’t sure what he was supposed to do. Also, Ewell himself had reconnoitered Cemetery Hill--and knew that the Union had already occupied it; the Iron Brigade was there. Granted, there weren’t a great many troops there, but what no one talks about is the nature of that particular point on the Union defense line--the steep slope, rocks and wooded nature of the hill that made an attack, especially at nightfall, practically impossible given defenders. It gives the lie to Porter Alexander who was extremely critical of Lee’s decision, on July 2, of attacking Cemetery Ridge and not the Hill. Alexander, who had a limitless supply of self-confidence if not downright arrogance, admitted that he had not seen the area of Cemetery Hill, but still felt omniscient enough to criticize Lee--who had seen it. One always has to be careful with memoirs, especially those of the losers. Trimble, for example, was an ambitious trouble-maker who was quite self-serving in his accounts after the war of what happened at Gettysburg.

I found this the most readable, the most followable of Pfanz’s three books, if for no other reason than the maps were excellent! Which can not be said of the other two. Also, the extensive notes to each chapter were well worth reading. As usual, Pfanz includes excerpts from letters, diaries and memoirs of everyone from the lowliest private in either army to the highest-ranking generals. This not only makes the book more interesting from a personal perspective (and also shows how no two soldiers saw the fighting the same way) but also provides a bibliography for further reading in terms of these personal reminiscences.

While this book can be read on its own, it’s still better to read the other two (Gettysburg, the First Day and Gettysburg, the Second Day with a good set of maps, such as Gottlieb’s The Maps of Gettysburg at hand. The first two books are worth the extra effort, and will make the third that much more of a pleasure to read.

Highly recommended.

I am going to have to get copies of all 3 of Pfanz's books, that's all there is to it. I will get the map book, too, just to save myself frustration.

You really need some maps for the first two books. It drove me crazy. The first book was the worst, because Gottlieb and Pfanz approach the fighting in different ways, and Gottlieb's book doesn't cover everything. BUT it was much better than not having any maps. Pfanz's book on the second day had adequate maps--once the Longstreet attack started. But before? when he devoted a huge part of the book to talking about troop movements? Not one map! NOT ONE!

There may be other resources, but the Gottlieb book is the best one I know of, Stasia, and it has the added advantage of being really brilliant on the march of both armies to Gettysburg. The maps are very, very good, the text is a great summary. I finally understood that march when I read Gottlieb.

I haven't completed the entire Gottlieb book, which would be an excellent book to have for Gettysburg, because I haven't read all his sections on Days 2 and 3 and I want to see what he does with Lee's retreat. That's coming up after I finish what promises to be a terrible book on Hancock's defense of the Union center on Day 2, and a book on Jeb Stuart's controversial ride that separated him from Lee's army--which so far is pretty interesting. THEN I'll settle down to enjoy Gottlieb!

And I should mention, Stasia, that you'll study the first two books as a result. The third can be read in bed!

Also I would highly recommend that you make copies of the Order of Battle for both armies in the back of any of the three books. It will be very hard to follow who's who without that handy as well. by Book 3, if you read them close together which I did, you do remember who's in what Corps, but it can be totally confusing if you don't have the Order of Battle handy. I made my own, but that it isn't necessary--a reproduction of the one in the back of any of the books will do just fine.

I have already put all 3 of Pfanz's books and the Gottlieb book on my 'To Buy' list, but I am not sure when that will happen. I just took a pay cut and hours cut at work, so it may be a while.

Oh, too bad, Stasia! the downturn has become personal! At least you didn't lose your job altogether.

Actually, in my case, I had 2 companies fighting for my services. It boiled down to take the money and not be as happy as I thought I could be at the second company for less money. I chose looking at the long-term and turning down the money for what I think will be a better position for me in the long run, if that makes sense.

It most certainly does. What exactly do you do?

I am a bailbondsman.

Cool! I never met a bailbondsman before. Lots of insurance agents of other sorts, but they have no cache.

Wow! That's a new one for me as well. How did you get into that line of work? It's not exactly an everyday sort of thing. don't you have to do a lot of risk analysis?

As to how I got in that line of work - I answered an ad in the paper - very easily.

Yes, we do have a lot of risk analysis. As a matter of fact, when we enter a new client into our system, we have to assign a risk factor to each, so for example a first time offender still living with his or her parents would be a 1, but an illegal alien would be a 5.

One of the things that I have learned through the business is that there is a lot of instinct involved, not just looking at things on paper, and that human beings are for the most part idiots (which I actually knew before I started, lol).

The Night Watch
Sarah Waters

In her 4th novel, Sarah Waters breaks radically with her first three books, in era, structure, and theme. The Night Watch is set against a 1946 London struggling to recover from the war; 2/3 of the book, however, takes place during the war itself.

Waters follows the lives of four ordinary Londoners as they cope as best as they can with the horrors of the war and its aftermath. However she does this most unusually by following them backwards in time; the book in three parts, starts in 1946 and ends in 1941. We learn about the lives of the four--three women and a young man--right from the beginning--or we think we do. Loss, heartbreak, obsessive love and jealousy, a dark past affecting the present--all are made clear, or seem to be, in one case through a brutal revelation by another of the characters.

Switch back to 1944, and Waters does a magnificent job of using the terrible daily struggle of Londoners to stay alive and, more importantly, stay relatively sane with some hope through the darkest period of the war. The Night Watch is named after the units, staffed mostly by women, that were sent out on call to give emergency treatment to victims of the bombing. Here we get a background--a surprising one--on the four main characters.

And finally, 1941, the start of the war. And the start of everything in the story.

As I finished the first section and started on the second seeing what was happening I wondered how in the world Waters was going to maintain any kind of tension. I decided that what she was writing, then, was some sort of psychological drama--that there would be no real mystery to it and she would simply develop the plot from the point of view of the characters’ own development.

I should have known better.

There are enough twists and turns, unexpected developments, to satisfy the most devoted reader of Affinity and Fingersmith--in fact, more so. Make no mistake, this is a sophisticated book. You see what the four protagonists are going through and you feel helpless--and then you're blindsided by the developments. Possibly the overall theme can be summed up by something that Kay, one of the protagonists, asks, wryly and a little sadly, why can’t we love the ones we should love? That question hangs over the book.

The last line of the book is as good as they come.

For me, Waters took a radical leap forward with this book, not content to rest on her highly deserved laurels for her three Victorian-era novels. Given that she’s capable of such surprises, it’s hard to wait for her next exploration.

Highly recommended.

ETA: Just checked--Waters has a 5th book, scheduled to be released on April 30th of this year.

Joyce,
I hate to bother you again, but I was beginning (don't laugh) to get my list together for my 2010 readings and decided that I wanted to do a bunch of reading on the Civil War. So naturally, I am turning to the expert. I thought I would like to read a biography of Robert E. Lee. He is actually a very, very distant relative (something like eighth cousin a zillion times removed) but I thought he would be interesting. Do you know a good one?
I've already got The Civil War Battlefield Guide, Fighting For The Confederacy, this Republic of Suffering, Gettysburg, the First Day, Gettysburg, the Second Day, Gettysburg--Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill, Lincoln By David Herbert Donald, Lincoln President-Elect : Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter 1860-1861, Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief, With Malice Toward None: A Life of Abraham Lincoln on my list (thanks to you) with a bunch of other ones that include the 3 volume set by Shelby Foote. (I love him on those PBS specials.) If you know of any other really great books on the topic, please let me know. I was going to just go with your 5 star books in your library but there are so many. I already have 10 books for Lincoln and need a few more for the war.

Have you read 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War they Failed to See? Is there a good Biography of Jefferson Davis? I think that's all for now. If you want to reply on my profile instead of here that's okay.

Thanks again - sorry to have usurped your thread for advice.
Cheli

Good heavens, Cheli, I'm flattered, to put it mildly!

First, just to show you how unexpert I am, I don't know the best biography of Lee--that's something I have to look up myself. There is a book that came out recently that I have earmarked to buy:Reading the Man:A Portrait of Robert E. Lee through his Private Letters but it definitely is not a biography.

Second, the biography you have of Lincoln by Donald is supposedly the best--it's a terrific read.

I don't think I have a review of it up, because I'm pretty sure I rad it for the last time before I started doing reviews on LT, but at the moment, the single best book on the Gettysburg campaign that I know of at the moment is Edward Coddington's The Gettysburg Campaign: A study in Command.

The campaign is considered to have started on June 3 when Lee began withdrawing his troops from Fredericksburg and started them north; it ended in mid July when he crossed the Potomac in retreat. The march north for both armies is done spectacularly well by Gottfried's The Maps of Gettysburg. I haven't really studied it beyond Day 1 of Gettysburg, but will tell you that the concise text that accompanies the maps is very well done, and the maps are invaluable. I don't see how you're going to really get much out of whole sections of Pfanz without maps at least as good as those.

Shelby Foote is simply the best detailed history of the war that I know of. The one volume work of McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom is superb, but of course it's one volume--doesn't go into as much detail as Foote does. Still, I wouldn't pass it up. It's a great read.

Don't miss Mary Chestnut's Diaries--that gets quoted several times on the PBS series and it's terrific. Sherman's Memoirs are well worth reading--they are among the best. If you can fit in in--and I recommend this to everyone who wants to know the origins of the war--do read The Impending Crisis. Heavens, let us not forget Team of Rivals!

I have not read at least 4 of the books you mention, especially the 1858 book you ask about. There are many good books on the war that I have not read!

About Jefferson Davis: I have two biographies marked to be bought, Jefferson Davis, the Man and His Hour andJefferson DAvis, American i have no idea of how good they are, just that there seems to be a consensus that they're at least better than average.

Many of the books I now have are more specialized, on particular battles such as Gettysburg, Antietam, or campaigns such as Longstreet in the West, Braxton Bragg, and a truly great book on Antietam, McPherson's Antietam.
Oh yes, don't miss Co Aytch by Sam Watkins for a great memoir of a young man from Tennessee. It's one of the best to come out of the war.

I have literally a few dozen other books that I have not read yet . AND I get others all the time. There is no end to this folly! :-) But it is my passion. I just wish you were correct and I was an expert.

In the end, I don't think it matters because you'll get hooked by dear old Shelby and you'll be a goner for life. That 3 volume history is something like 3,000 pages of one heck of a page-turning novel and it will suck you right in. You won't be able to put it down, and your sleep schedule will be wrecked. When you come up out of it, let me know, and I will welcome another "lifer" to the ranks! Then you'll read every book you can lay your hands on!

Good luck on your reading. Hijack my thread indeed. You've got to be aware that I can talk about this all day, all night, and into next week and never stop for breath.

What's that tired old saying? so many books on the US Civil War, so little time! :-)

Joyce...
I'm just stopping in to say hello and to mention again that I am so darn impressed by your knowledge of the civil war....

23. Plenty of Blame to Go Around by Eric Wittenberg and J. David Petruzzi

A very, very good examination of Jeb Stuart's controversial ride around the Union army that prevented him from reaching Gettysburg until the afternoon of July 2. Most historians blame Stuart for Lee's defeat, claiming that Lee was therefore robbed of his "eyes and ears" and thus blindly stumbled into the battle of Gettysburg. The authors make an excellent case that, as the title suggest, Stuart was partially responsible, but so was Lee, Jubal Early and one of the Confederate cavalry commanders that Stuart left behind or the specific purpose of supplying Lee with information about the Army of the Potomac's movements. They also give great credit to the Union cavalry who engaged Stuart in two major battles and delayed him at least two full days.

This is a detailed study of that ride, complete with excellent maps and fascinating detail. The authors provide 3 chapters of discussion about the controversy that started practically during the battle and up through the present day, almost literally. They then draw their own conclusions. Nicely done.

Joyce, my local library does not have Plenty of Blame to Go Around, but they do have another one of Wittenberg's books, Glory Enough for All. Have you read it, and if so, what did you think of it?

I've not read of it or even heard of it, but Wittenberg is a respected historian of the era and this book is very well written. So I'd be inclined to read it if I had it available to me.

I just looked it up and it certainly sounds interesting. I should have mentioned that Wittenberg's specialty is cavalry. It really does look intriguing.

OK, thanks for the input. I will read it sometime (eventually, lol) and let you know what I think.

Please do. The Amazon blurb sure makes it tempting. I may have to get it! :-)

Joycepa - thanks to your thread I checked The Worst Hard Time out of the library and wow! It is so hard to read, and I want to cry thinking of those poor people and animals and those millions of acres of land destroyed. The scariest part for me is how much Hoover et al sound like our politicians today. I read Hoover's comment about how the problem isn't banks or the economy, it the American consumer's "lack of confidence" and I almost dropped the book.

I know that this book was already discussed in your thread ages ago, but I just wanted to thank you for bringing it to my attention. Thanks!

#143: I'm just delighted to have brought to someone else's attention a book that I think every American should read. Egan did a fantastic job.

As a former and now part-time farmer, I know what you mean--I can stand about anything except killing off animals and land.

Thanks for letting me know!

Since I'm also a Civil War buff I don't know how I missed seeing your thread before now. Since I've found it now I wanted to ask a couple of questions.

I saw you are reading McPherson's Antietam, have you read Sears' Landscape Turned Red? I was wondering how they compare.

I also had issues with Sheen's Lee in Gettysburg, Robert Duvall did a much better job in the not as good movie, Gods and Generals.

Another good source for maps is The West Point Atlas of American Wars, I have the original 1950's hardcover but I understand there is a spiral version. The first volume covers 1690-1900 but most of the book covers the Civil War. There is also a West Point Atlas of the American Civil War which I have not seen but I imagine it's the same as Volume 1 minus the non-Civil War maps.

I'm currently re-reading Battle Cry of Freedom which I last read when it first came out in the 80's, as a refresher.

#145: No, I haven't read Landscape Turned Red but understand that it's a good book. I really liked Antietam but then I'm very partial to McPherson.

I thought Robert Duvall was a perfect Lee! And I agree about the movie of Gods and Generals--the only good thing about it was the Battle of Fredericksburg itself. I loathed the depiction of Jackson and the fact that the screenwriter chose to make Jackson the focus of the movie. I felt sorry for Stephen Lang who is a fine actor and who was a superb Pickett in Gettysburg. It's my understanding that Jeff Shaara also had heartburn with that movie and as a resulted, refused to sell rights to the final book in the trilogy to Turner.

I'll look up the West Point maps you talk about but doubt I can tell much. Have you seen at all the Gottfried The Maps of Gettysburg? It's a really fine book, and since yo have the West Point maps, I'd dearly love to know how they compare. I have no real way of telling from here. I'd love to have a second set that are simply maps; Gottfried's book is more than that, and therefore all his maps are oriented towards his discussion of the different aspects of the battle. It's still an excellent book to have, however, and I would have been truly frustrated with two of the Pfanz books if I hadn't had those maps.

I think that Battle Cry of Freedom is the best one-volume work on the Civil War around. I'm due for a reread myself. I've read comments from people who didn't care for it that much but only, I think, because it was overwhelming--too much crammed into one book.

ETA: forgot to mention--I have The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War which is fun but does not do for detailed look at the fighting.

Folks, I've decided to get myself out of the "challenge" mode and am abandoning this thread in favor of Club Read; my thread is here. I think it's just a better fit for what I want to do right now.

>134 Joycepa: Joyce - Great review of The Night Watch. One of these days I'm going to have whittled down my TBR pile enough to start adding back to it! In the meantime, onto the wishlist it goes.

>147 Joycepa:: Joycepa
I am sorry you are moving to the Club Read group, I enjoyed your thread.
Happy readings!
Anita

Tracy: her latest book, which I've pre-ordered from Amazon, will be released on March 30 of this year. There is not one word about its subject, nothing, or at least there wasn't two days ago.

>146 Joycepa:. I looked at The Maps of Gettysburg on Amazon and it looks great, I'll have to get it before I go to Gettysburg next month. I especially like that the publisher has downloadable corrections available for some errors that have been found.

>147 Joycepa:. I hope it wasn't something I said. :-)
I'll look for your new thread.

#151: Thanks for the information about the downloads! I found a few errors but they were easy to spot--turning left instead of right, or a regiment that wasn't the one it was supposed to be. I think there are also errors of omission in that regard. I most certainly will take a look!

And do please let me know how you think the two sets of maps compare.

You say something?? LOL Oh, Lord no--no, I've got to relax a little more about my reading is all, and this is a way of doing it.

So--you're going to Gettysburg? I want to do that this June myself. I've started to look into it. What's putting me off a little is reading about all the crowds. The first and only time I was there was 50 years ago, and there was almost no one at the park. Not sure I can handle so many people!

I'll let you know how the crowds are, although they'll probably be smaller in March then in June. The last time I was there was about 30 years ago and I can hardly remember it.

#13: I will very much appreciate hearing about the visit!

I am currently logged in to the Savas Beatie site, hoping to download at least one of the updated maps. And as a result, I've also found that Gottfried has published a set of maps for First Bull Run as well. Going to look into that. Thanks for that information!

I just printed out one of the maps, and if I'm not mistaken, it's one where Gottfried left out one of the Confederate regiments. One of those things easy to spot. But I'll have to check to make sure. I made corrections in my copy of the book.

#149, anita: Oh heavens, I'm just moving over for a different format. Post #147 has the link to the new thread. It just gives me the opportunity to do something different with my reading. Everyone is still going to learn more than they ever wanted to know about the number of books on the American Civil War you can go broke buying. :-)

Joyce
I added The Worst Hard Time to be tbr pile awhile ago...After reading some of your most recent posts, I'm moving it up closer to the top.

Your thread is an addicting and very interesting one!

**standing under cover just in case of bolts of lightning from you Civil War buffs**

But--how do you view the Bruce Catton series, which was my introduction into more serious Civil War literature years ago. I recall it being highly readable and led to others, including Foote's series several years ago.

I like historical novels as well--as long as they stay within the bounds of near true history--which is why I also avoid Philippa Gregory's series about the Tudors. I was darn near pitching books across the room for the three I read thinking the match to history had to improve.

It's been interesting catching up on this thread. Be back later to see if the lightning struck or not.

No lightning bolts, I'm afraid! LOL

Catton deserves tremendous credit for popularizing the Civil War. He was a genuine scholar and wrote beautifully. He and Foote were writing about the same time, although Foote came on the scene later than Catton.

If Catton has a fault, it's that he basically neglected the war in the west, focusing far more on the war in the east--Virginia, Maryland, and PA. His books are still relevant as an introduction, although I prefer Foote, since the latter is far more inclusive.

You're either the second or the third one I've heard complain about Philippa Gregory. Sets in concrete my determination never to read her!

I've pretty much abandoned this thread and can be found through the link in post #147. Hope to see you there!

Hi Joyce
Congratulations on your Hot Review status for Through a Glass Darkly. Way to Go!!!!

Joyce

I'm stopping by to say hello and to congratulate you on another hot review, for noted on home page today.

Joyce - you are one HOT lady!!!

I gave you the thumb, Ms. H. Review.

Joyce
Congratulations again on your "hot review" regarding In the Woods.

As I posted on the thread of TrishNY, the 75 challenge folk are on a roll. Today's home page reflects a hot review for you, for girlunderglass, Cauterize, Trish and for Cait86!

I think this is great! I'm feeling very fortunate to have found this wonderful group!

great review--congrats you hot thing you!~!