|
Post by David Bryan Singleton on Jun 1, 2012 20:49:36 GMT -5
I finished the book today also. It has prompted me to go back and look at books and articles I have read in the past. The author makes reference to many books in my library. There are a few references cited that I need to review to see where they got their information. Hopefully they refer to an original source. An acquaintance of mine, Jim Lutzweilwer, wrote a thesis for his masters titled "Who Edits The Editors" and after reading that document I have not been able to read a history book the same way. I continuously question the source of the statements made. This author cites his sources often but in some cases not enough. I can recommend this volume heatedly and will probably re-read it again - slowly. I went through it pretty fast because, quite frankly, it got very exciting and I could not put it down even though I absolutely knew what was going on and what was going to take place.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 1, 2012 22:51:41 GMT -5
I continuously question the source of the statements made. Donovan would certainly agree that that's the way to read history. It's the duty of all history lovers (and historians) to remain vigilant and seek the truth. Among serious students (and that's everyone with a true interest, published or not, professional or avocational, academic or layperson), new discoveries or reevaluations of old ideas are everyone's gain and no one's loss. Jim
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Jun 2, 2012 4:08:55 GMT -5
My copy arrived yesterday. The first part I looked at was his note on David Crockett's death, but I found that disappointing. I still have an open mind on that topic, but nothing Donovan said swayed me in either direction, and I certainly didn't agree with his conclusion to the note (page 453). On the other hand, although I'm only up to page 14, I'm enjoying reading the main text, but I suspect the absence of footnotes will limit its use as a reference book.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 2, 2012 6:43:21 GMT -5
Jim's original manuscript had numbered source notes. Somewhere between completion of the mss and publication they went out the window.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 2, 2012 7:19:31 GMT -5
This seems to be a growing trend among publishers, and I'm not sure why. I'm not crazy about it, and I don't know anyone else who is.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 2, 2012 13:30:25 GMT -5
Publishers think it makes for a more "elegant" look, lmao.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 2, 2012 13:46:24 GMT -5
Got my copy Thursday. Foolishly, I started near the middle with the discussion as to why just about everyone who came to the Alamo, (Neill, Bowie, Travis, etc.) insisted it was the place to fight and worth any sacrifice. Donovan makes it pretty clear, they all had opinions and choices to make. I kind of think if they didn't make the choices they did, we'd belong to a different forum and perhaps be writing about a whole new history of Texas and the Southwest. So far, the book is detailed history and very humanizing to the characters. I'm reading it like a reference manual, instead of a piece of dramatic history. Don't you guys make this mistake. But either way, I'll enjoy it. PS: I use multi-colored clear posti-notes to help with flipping pages from narrative to notes and sidebars. I don't like lengthy footnotes, but I find sidebars, like Albert Nofi uses, a good writng technique.
|
|
|
Post by David Bryan Singleton on Jun 4, 2012 9:59:35 GMT -5
There is an article in the June 2, 2012 (Saturday) issue of the Wall Street Journal with a review of the book. I found it on line. Article by Terry Eastland titled "That Texas Should Be Free.". Page C7 on the U.S. edition.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 5, 2012 22:23:37 GMT -5
My reading of the book has been delayed, and I'm still not completely thru the book, though I have read the endnotes twice. So far I am very impressed. What I truly like, is it seems that Donovan was able to totally divorce himself from the popular images, both historical and cultural and look at the evidence with fresh eyes.
I've read some criticisms of some of his conclusions, but for the most part they have been by people who have not read the book, and apparently don't like having their preheld beliefs challenged.
While his most controversial conclusions are going to be his death of Crockett, and his findings on Rose and Travis drawing the line, his arguments are compelling and logically based on the evidence, and especially for Travis and Rose much of it recently discovered.
Not that I don't have a few quibbles in places, but where I may have held radically different opinions, he has definitely caused me to re evaluate my position.
As already mentioned the publisher's decision to omit numbered endnotes is a terrible shame.
One final thought, for now, while I greatly enjoyed his "A Terrible Glory" about the Little Bighorn, I was conscious of the author's bias throughout. Other than a dislike for Santa Anna, its hard for me to detect any bias in this work. It seems to me, that he has achieved both a sympathetic and critical analysis of both the Texians volunteers and the Mexican Army.
I highly recommend the book, if I could only keep one narrative history of the Alamo, this would be it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jun 9, 2012 20:54:11 GMT -5
My wife, God love her, called me when I was at work Friday asking me what "that book" is I was looking for. She was at Barnes & Nobile here in Nashua, NH, and thought of me. I told her and she found it ... for $30. I double checked Amazon -- $10 less. She asked if B&N would match Amazone and was tole, "No". Sale lost at B&N and made at Amazon (ordered it Friday). Even with shipping, it's $7 less.
Anyway, I am looking forward to this read.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by David Bryan Singleton on Jun 18, 2012 10:15:47 GMT -5
I can't believe this but there were actually 2 copies of this book at Half Price Books here in Houston. They were brand new. If you are in Houston it is the location near Westheimer and Kirkwood.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 18, 2012 14:41:31 GMT -5
I started jumping around Donovan's excellent book when my dear spouse distracted me with a book titled "Cain at Gettysburg" by Ralph Peters. I got sucked in immediately with conversations between Lee and Longstreet and Meade and Reynolds in the days leading up to the confrontation. The battle scene details are from the squad level and very intimate. The auther gives specific homage to Shaara's "Killer Angels" and justifies his novel as a product of a different time in American History. He notes that feelings toward armed conflict change and Shaara's book reflected the war sentiments of 1974. Peter's wants to filter the Gettysburg battle through our current American war experience. I'm not sure how well he succeeds yet, but I thought his premise worthwhile and recommend it to anyone after you read "Blood of Heros." I know this is off topic, but I wanted to share the experience. Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Jun 20, 2012 9:27:01 GMT -5
I've just finished Donovan's book and thoroughly enjoyed it. It reads like a narrative or novel but contains citations and references. Donovan didnt use footnotes or place endnote numbers in the text, thereby keeping the story moving along.
My one criticism (and it is a general one that can be applied to all Alamo histories): I wish Donovan had explored the motivations of the main characters. What was it about that era's culture and society and the men it produced that compelled them to willingly sacrifice themselves? So many of them were young with nascent families and had not fully developed their potentials - but they did not hesitate. Donovan's description of Travis' Anahuac adventures are compelling and we see for the first time Travis's uncompromising willingness to die for his beliefs - but this trait appears out of nowhere, it makes a sudden and very dramatic appearance Nothing in the text beforehand prepares you for it. I'd really like to know what drove these men to their deaths. I dont think our modern society can produce such men.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 20, 2012 12:17:43 GMT -5
I think Travis was a Romantic and, honestly, a troublemaker. I tend to view him as a young man driven by his emotions, intent on making a name for himself.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by David Bryan Singleton on Jun 20, 2012 13:36:24 GMT -5
For those that have finished the book, how do you feel about his discussion of Louis (Moses) Rose and Zuber? To me it is the first time I remember where there was a logical argument that it was true. I was told this story by my father when I was very young and have always wanted to believe it but with all I have read in the past I just could not say for sure What say you?
|
|