|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 23, 2010 14:55:10 GMT -5
Which is more than I can say for the book. I'm actually really sorry to have to say that because a new book on the Alamo that contributed some new information or fresh, informed analysis would have been most welcome.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 23, 2010 15:12:34 GMT -5
Which is more than I can say for the book. I'm actually really sorry to have to say that because a new book on the Alamo that contributed some new information or fresh, informed analysis would have been most welcome. Allen That's true. Get the lead out, Mr. Zaboly!! Jim
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 24, 2010 2:58:00 GMT -5
When I first saw this book advertised on the internet, I thought it might be interesting with some revelations on the Alamo battle. The sub-title (The Anatomy of a Land Stand Myth) and the cropped nature of the Gary Zaboly cover picture (cutting the Alamo church in two) seemed to set a awful tone, but I didn't know if this was the author's intent. Upon seeing the dust cover notes for this book on Amazon, I found them obnoxious, tendentious and probably approved by the author. After reading all of the bad opinions here and reviews on Amazon, I'm not surprised that Phillip T. Tucker's work is partisan, conclusion-driven, one-sided and geared toward tearing down the real history of the Alamo fight. It was a train wreck in the making and we probably should have seen it coming with the provoking cover. Maybe Mr. Tucker and the editor were subconsciously trying to warn us stupid, racist Texans and Alamo buffs not to buy the book. ;D
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 24, 2010 7:53:14 GMT -5
Which is more than I can say for the book. I'm actually really sorry to have to say that because a new book on the Alamo that contributed some new information or fresh, informed analysis would have been most welcome. Allen That's true. Get the lead out, Mr. Zaboly!! Jim Jim, I'm "wearing out horses" in the process...and you ain't seen nothing yet.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 24, 2010 8:33:32 GMT -5
Now, THERE'S a book I'm really anxious to read!!
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Apr 24, 2010 23:06:53 GMT -5
Now, THERE'S a book I'm really anxious to read!! Allen Me three.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 24, 2010 23:49:10 GMT -5
Now, THERE'S a book I'm really anxious to read!! Allen Me three. As shall I.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 25, 2010 3:39:12 GMT -5
Indeed, I think ultimately that's the problem with Exodus. There's a lot of useful research been done since Illiad and Blood of Noble Men which would justify a new treatment of the battle.
We were rather expecting/hoping that Exodus would provide that and while there are obviously legitimate issues with it, I think the real disappointment here is not that its a remake of Eagles, but that it isn't the new treatment of the battle we were led to expect.
Now Gary's book on the other hand...
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 26, 2010 21:59:29 GMT -5
There are a myriad of problems with this book. Picking them out is akin to shooting fish in the proverbial barrel. One of the inherent mistakes made by the author is that he constantly dispels a myth which in most cases, has never existed, or has been dispelled for decades.
Those who have read the book know what I'm referring to. I'll give two examples (there are many others.) Tucker "dispels" the myth of the Long Rifle (his capitalization, not mine.) Anyone heard of this one lately? I mean, like in the last 50 years?
Then Tucker describes "one central Alamo myth holds that the compound was surrounded and attacked on all sides...."
A myth created by whom? The author appears to create a myth, simply to destroy it.
I'm sorry, I bear no ill will towards Mr. Tucker, but he's writing a book directed towards an audience that is well-informed and well-read. We demand better.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 26, 2010 22:27:38 GMT -5
Amen. One really gets the sense that the author didn't take the subject, or his audience, seriously. Very disappointing. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 27, 2010 1:13:47 GMT -5
There are a myriad of problems with this book. Picking them out is akin to shooting fish in the proverbial barrel. One of the inherent mistakes made by the author is that he constantly dispels a myth which in most cases, has never existed, or has been dispelled for decades.
Those who have read the book know what I'm referring to. I'll give two examples (there are many others.) Tucker "dispels" the myth of the Long Rifle (his capitalization, not mine.) Anyone heard of this one lately? I mean, like in the last 50 years?
Then Tucker describes "one central Alamo myth holds that the compound was surrounded and attacked on all sides...."
A myth created by whom? The author appears to create a myth, simply to destroy it.
I'm sorry, I bear no ill will towards Mr. Tucker, but he's writing a book directed towards an audience that is well-informed and well-read. We demand better. I think I may have to disagree with you there. The examples quoted suggest that its a polemic aimed at an audience who may be well read in all manner of other things, but not the Alamo. Both of those myths can be found in John Wayne's Alamo and will therefore be familiar to those who have seen the film, either in childhood or used as a criticism of 1960s conservatism, but probed no deeper, perhaps because of a pre-existing liberal bias against military/imperialist histories. I have over the years been constantly amused and bemused by the astounding ignorance of military matters displayed by those who are anti-military.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 27, 2010 5:27:51 GMT -5
I had been waiting for Exodus to appear in the Texana section of my local Barnes and Noble's Bookstore for a couple weeks. Over the weekend I returned and asked a clerk when Exodus was going to be stocked and he stated they already had it on the shelf. I told him to show me where and he took me to the U.S. history area, where they had a dozen copies. I asked why it was not in the Texana area and the clerk informed me that Exodus was controversial and the powers that be decided to hide it in U.S history. I was really amazed by this book placement and wonder if this has occurred elsewhere
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 27, 2010 7:25:25 GMT -5
I can't comment on where its being shelved (if at all) but it strikes me that from what I've heard about it the book is not about the Alamo but American imperialism and therefore whether you agree with the author's argument or not better placed in US history than Texana
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 27, 2010 7:25:51 GMT -5
Tucker "dispels" the myth of the Long Rifle (his capitalization, not mine.) Anyone heard of this one lately? I mean, like in the last 50 years?
I'm sorry, I bear no ill will towards Mr. Tucker, but he's writing a book directed towards an audience that is well-informed and well-read. We demand better. I think I may have to disagree with you there. The examples quoted suggest that its a polemic aimed at an audience who may be well read in all manner of other things, but not the Alamo. Both of those myths can be found in John Wayne's Alamo ... Well is HAS been 50 years since Wayne's Alamo, for whatever it's worth in this dicussion, so Hiram isn't entirely wrong (at least according to my mathematically challenged mind). Rod -- I do find it interesting that B&N would "hide" the book. In fact, if controversy translates into potentially more interest and, thus, sales, why wouldn't they stick that book out there for people to see and buy? Kind of makes no sense to me. I'll have to scout out some stores in Dallas when I finally return from this training trip in California, and see if it's the same deal there. As far as peeing my hard-earned money away on this book, I think I'll pass. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 27, 2010 8:28:12 GMT -5
Stuart, this is what I was referring to when I said that Tucker sets up a fictional strawman image of the Alamo, based largely on Hollywood images, not the past 50 years of Alamo literature, and then knocks it down with a badly distorted version of things that did happen at the Alamo. The book isn't deep enough or even well-thought-out enough to say its a consideration of any overriding concept, such as 19th century American imperialism. It's more like an inferior version of Jeff Long's book, which was at least coherent, based on facts, and far better written. The author repeatedly claims that he is the first to "expose what really happened," which is wrong on both counts. Frankly, I think he simply used well-known facts about the Alamo battle and twisted them into the wildest speculation in a badly-executed attempt to sensationalize it and "shock" his readers. But, it is so badly organized, written and edited that the effect, rather than shock, is more like a really dull thud.
Allen
|
|