|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 17, 2012 20:47:14 GMT -5
Note: This thread was started with posts moved from the "New Crockett Book Thread" and is the place to discuss Sam Houston biographies, novels, and movies.s
Allen Wiener wrote: To return to Lou's question, I agree with Rich in recommending Davis' "Three Roads to the Alamo" as the best and most well-researched Bowie bio to date. James L. Haley's "Sam Houston" is widely regarded as the best Houston bio.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 27, 2012 20:25:42 GMT -5
To return to Lou's question, I agree with Rich in recommending Davis' "Three Roads to the Alamo" as the best and most well-researched Bowie bio to date. James L. Haley's "Sam Houston" is widely regarded as the best Houston bio. I'll agree with that, but it sure is hard to know the true men with all the false facts.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 27, 2012 23:22:18 GMT -5
I have yet to read Haley's Houston, but I am gathering it is the first big step since Marquis James -- and he's not a Houston-basher, I'm a-thinkin'.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 29, 2012 0:18:40 GMT -5
I have yet to read Haley's Houston, but I am gathering it is the first big step since Marquis James -- and he's not a Houston-basher, I'm a-thinkin'. I think it's the only big step. It's the most insightful, well-researched and complete biography on Houston. Warts and all. Of course TRL famously maligned Haley as a Houston apologist in Alamo Traces, so you better not read it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 29, 2012 13:33:28 GMT -5
I have yet to read Haley's Houston, but I am gathering it is the first big step since Marquis James -- and he's not a Houston-basher, I'm a-thinkin'. I think it's the only big step. It's the most insightful, well-researched and complete biography on Houston. Warts and all. Of course TRL famously maligned Haley as a Houston apologist in Alamo Traces, so you better not read it. ;D If Tom didn't like it, I'll put it on top of my list.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 29, 2012 21:25:19 GMT -5
Marquis James' biography is probably the most fluid and readable of the numerous books on Houston. He didn't earn Pulitzer's for his Houston and Jackson bios for nothing. One of the great things about Haley's book is the sixty or so pages of detailed source notes and the bibliography. I like to know where things originate.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 30, 2012 2:05:45 GMT -5
Don't know how thoroughly he read it, but Dennis Quaid had Haley's book with him on the set of THE ALAMO. Possibly just for a publicity shot, but I think he likes to do his homework too. Plus he was fascinated with Houston since he was a kid in... Houston (I think).
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 30, 2012 2:14:39 GMT -5
If Tom didn't like it, I'll put it on top of my list. I should expand this a bit, because it is mostly a facetious comment. I think Tom Lindley's research was second to none, and the Alamo community owes him a deep debt of gratitude for being so archive-oriented. I just had trouble with his conclusions which usually seemed thinly based to me, although always a sincere point-of-view. I learned from him, but I disliked the way he treated a few of his fellow historians.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 30, 2012 14:40:51 GMT -5
I agree, Rich. I thought Tom was often conclusion driven, which was kind of a disservice to his own exhaustive research. But the guy really knew what he was doing. I'm sorry I didn't get to meet him because I've heard he could be a lot of fun to talk to around the table at Shiloh's after the Symposiums. I've heard he liked to stimulate conversation and get people to think, maybe by saying some provocative things. He certainly brought a healthy dose of skepticism to the field, which is not a bad thing at all.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 2, 2012 20:54:04 GMT -5
If Tom didn't like it, I'll put it on top of my list. I should expand this a bit, because it is mostly a facetious comment. I think Tom Lindley's research was second to none, and the Alamo community owes him a deep debt of gratitude for being so archive-oriented. I just had trouble with his conclusions which usually seemed thinly based to me, although always a sincere point-of-view. I learned from him, but I disliked the way he treated a few of his fellow historians. No explanation needed. I was just a Texas ranger history buff (and still) before I read Lindley's Alamo Traces and saw the 2004 Alamo movie. Before these two events I had thought that most of the mysteries of the Alamo had been settled. I liked Lindley's book, but saw some problems with his conclusions on General Houston, the San Jacinto campaign and especially the movement of some Texas ranger units. Over the years I learned from several Texas authors, historians and archivists that Lindley could be a detailed researcher/ curmudgeon and dismissive of other people's work, but it's all water-under-the-bridge if he inspired more Alamo and Texas Revolution research. I've irritated a few authors myself. Like most historical films, the 2004 Alamo movie was more entertainment than history. I thought it was well-done and better than any other film on the Alamo subject. As I've said before, my main objections were a matter of proportions. Gen. Houston should have been portrayed by a big man like Randy Quade or Liam Neeson and those gigantic bronze 12 pounder San Jacinto cannons should have been played by some small, ordinary iron 4 pounders. There was certainly a lot of other little things, but I either didn't notice them on my first viewing or can over-look them now. I hope the studio will come out with a director's cut some day. * Caveat added to first paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 15, 2012 0:21:22 GMT -5
I think it's the only big step. It's the most insightful, well-researched and complete biography on Houston. Warts and all. Of course TRL famously maligned Haley as a Houston apologist in Alamo Traces, so you better not read it. ;D If Tom didn't like it, I'll put it on top of my list. The worst thing about James' biography is the book title. I don't believe anyone ever called Sam Houston the Raven during his life-time. I don't blame James for this poetic or poesque name creation, but another inventive Houston biographer. Regardless, Houston is the Raven for evermore.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 15, 2012 14:39:16 GMT -5
If Tom didn't like it, I'll put it on top of my list. The worst thing about James' biography is the book title. I don't believe anyone ever called Sam Houston the Raven during his life-time. I don't blame James for this poetic or poesque name creation, but another inventive Houston biographer. Regardless, Houston is the Raven for evermore. Quoeth Marquis James.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 15, 2012 14:41:40 GMT -5
...but it's all water-under-the-bridge if he inspired more Alamo and Texas Revolution research. I couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 15, 2012 14:51:30 GMT -5
Like most historical films, the 2004 Alamo movie was more entertainment than history. Indeed. I wish I knew who authored the quote I have been repeating for decades: "Movies are there to inspire, not to inform." That said, the team on THE ALAMO (2004) chose to inform unless it killed dramaturgy, story arc or character arc. That's why they not only kept Hardin and Huffines around for the whole production, but continually encouraged their input and responded to it as much as possible. By contrast, THE ALAMO (1960), my favorite movie of all-time (make no mistake), used and abused historians (used for publicity; abused by not responding to anything they suggested) so much that Lon Tinkle and J. Frank Dobie refused to allow their names to be placed on the screen. Happily, I am seeing young people (who either have never seen John Wayne's or do not like it) being turned on to the real history because of their (dare I say it?) love for John Lee Hancock's THE ALAMO. It DO go on.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 16, 2012 23:44:39 GMT -5
The worst thing about James' biography is the book title. I don't believe anyone ever called Houston the Raven during his life-time. I don't blame James for this poetic or poesque name creation, but another inventive Houston biographer. Regardless, Houston is the Raven for evermore. Quoeth Marquis James. Well, originally I think it was Sam Houston's first biographer Charles Edwards Lester, who was quoted. When Houston was sent to the U.S. Senate in April 1846, he almost certainly met this lawyer, abolitionist, Presbyterian minister turned author in D.C. Lester decided to write a biography (Sam Houston and his Republic) on the general, which was published later that fall. Lester stated on page 34 that Houston's Cherokee name was Colenneh and implied that the English translation was the Raven, but I have some doubts. The actual word for raven in their language is Kalona or kalonu. Colenneh may sound similar, but it may have a completely different meaning. Ravens also were not considered lucky or positive birds in Cherokee mythology. Tribal Children and especially Whites were not likely to be given the name raven in documented Cherokee culture. Ravens were the harbingers of death as shown in the raven-mocker tales. It's just a theory, but I surmise that Chuck Lester used his literary license to bestow the Raven name on Houston. He may have gotten this idea from Houston's recent purchase of his home on Raven Hill in Texas or from the 1845 publication of Edgar Allen Poe's famed poem, The Raven. Houston apparently believed in omen birds like eagles, hawks, owls, vultures, etc. but it's a little unlikely that he would use such a feared bird as a name or as his so-called spirit guide.
|
|