|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 17, 2009 12:10:28 GMT -5
I bought it directly from Nelson, who signed it for me and shipped it to me directly. His email is (provided by Paul, above):
georgenelsonkgc@mac.com
Yeah - I found the Chomsky endorsement quite impressive!
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Dec 17, 2009 17:28:25 GMT -5
Thanks, Allen! I would be real nice to get a signed copy. I´ll send him an e-mail then. First I´ve got to finish my new Crockett book
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 18, 2009 0:11:23 GMT -5
Sounds good, Hans!
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Dec 29, 2009 20:53:37 GMT -5
George Nelson sent me a signed copy of his book -- received it yesterday. Thanks for the recommendation Allen, it is well worth the price.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Jan 2, 2010 14:36:36 GMT -5
How much new information and pictures are in Mr. Nelson's latest edition? What surprises does it hold?
Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 2, 2010 15:09:27 GMT -5
Paul, see my post above with my summary of what I found there. I thought it was worthwhile.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jan 2, 2010 19:11:02 GMT -5
I'm glad y'all are enjoying the book. I was just fortunate to run into him a few months back, and didn't even realize this was a new edition. I thought -- think -- it's an excellent resource, but after reading through your reviews and comparisons, it even exceeds that.
I hope to add to my library again in two months when I return to San Antonio for the symposium/HHD.
Glad I could help with Mr. Nelson's email address.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Feb 18, 2011 2:33:01 GMT -5
I don't disagree with any of the opinions expressed here about certain books, but I'm an old stick-in-the-'dobe. I still think Walter Lord's narrative history is an eloquent and gripping introduction to The Alamo. It is the first book a newcomer should read because it is written in inspirational prose and piques one's interest to learn more without distracting the reader with burdensome footnotes and drawn-out historical arguments. Sure it's outdated, but it remains solid history nonetheless.
Richard
|
|
doc
Full Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by doc on Feb 18, 2011 9:37:25 GMT -5
Friend Richard:
Footnotes are "burdensome"only to those who bother to read them. Believe me, I ignored them for years before I discovered there's gold in them there notes. This is especially true nowadays as more scholars adopt content notes. I spent a lot of time writing the content notes for TEXIAN MACABRE and I'd hate to think readers pass them up--although they are free to do so. Like I tell people, there's a whole new layer of sick, twisted weirdness in the notes you'd probably like to see. Many times I'll stick an interesting info-bit into a content note so as NOT to clutter up the narrative with "drawn-out historical arguments." I assert vivid prose and scholarly citations need not be mutually exclusive. I'll admit they normally are--but that's a sin and a shame. To paraphrase the late, great Mr. Lennon, "All I am saying is give notes a chance."
Still, I share your admiration for A TIME TO STAND. That book changed my life and provided the narrative standard for everything I've ever written. It's a standard I never met, but I keep trying.
Dios y Tejas,
Doc
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 18, 2011 11:00:29 GMT -5
Having been on both sides of end notes and footnotes, I have to agree with Doc. At a minimum, readers ought to know where key information came from. Depending upon how serious you are about the topic, you can ignore the footnotes if you feel it disrupts the flow of the narrative and perhaps peruse them when you finish the book. Many will be simple citations that may not interest you, but there also may be real nuggets of priceless information. For example, I can't imagine skipping the notes in Jack Davis's Three Roads to the Alamo. Several of them are valuable stand-alone essays. I understand that his long article "How Davy Probably Didn't Die" in the ABA Journal began as a footnote in Three Roads.
Beyond that, an author often finds things that are not essential to the narrative, but worthy of the reader's attention. It's a judgment call for the author as to whether they disrupt the flow of the text or are an essential part of it. Too often I read books where authors seem to think that every scrap of info they uncover has to be included in the narrative, when much of it would serve better in end notes. I recently read 1848, which is a glaring case in point.
In general, I think that end notes/footnotes are essential to serious history and biography work and I have found books that lack them to be of little-to-no value as sources. Obviously, Walter Lord's A Time To Stand is an exception to this general rule as it clearly contained much original research and new thinking for its time. I wish Lord had included footnotes, however, which would have given us a clearer idea of where his information came from. Nonetheless, it remains one of my favorite Alamo books and Lord remains one of my favorite writers. I still think A Night To Remember is as good as it gets.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Feb 18, 2011 11:38:30 GMT -5
Allen: I am in general agreement with all you have said. The narrative style of "A Time To Stand" makes it not one of my favorite Alamo books, but my favorite. I think my approach is a little different though. A Time To Stand made me want to dig deeper, using Lord's work as a basic guide. I followed the same methods with "At Dawn's Early Light" (Bladensburg to Fort McHenry) and "Day of Infamy". It was the latter that began my lifelong interest in naval history with particular emphasis on the first year of the Pacific war, basicly Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Feb 18, 2011 12:06:31 GMT -5
Gentlemen, I always read the notes first. My own work is top-heavy in notes. Noone understands the function of notes better than I do. I was speaking in terms of a book that would introduce new readers to the subject of The Alamo and the larger context of Texas history at the time. Walter Lord's research and interpretation was viable and intelligent, his narrative literately structured and vividly conveyed without being fictitious or overly academic for the general reader. Nor does it cheat the academic reader. Those of us who dig deeper can pretty much ascertain what his sources are. That kind of book is always the best place to start, in any topic.
If all historians could write like Walter Lord, academic presses would publish more than 2,000 copies of a book. Lord did for The Alamo what Walter Noble Burns did for Billy the Kid, what Stuart Lake did for Wyatt Earp, he made the subject an American standard.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 18, 2011 12:22:08 GMT -5
Great analysis, Richard. I think that nails it. Different books serve different purposes. Many general readers who read and enjoyed Lord's books would not have been as receptive to a more academic work. Books like Lords are enjoyed by a broad audience and, for many of us, are a springboard toward deeper reading and learning on a given topic.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 18, 2011 17:22:18 GMT -5
I was at our local library for a meeting and while waiting for folks to show up I went over to the Texas section (small, but it is Illinois). There were a few more recent books there, but I did smile when I saw both Lon Tinkle's 13 Days to Glory and Lord's A Time To Stand. Nothing wrong with the classices to get started, and Lord is still my favorite historical writer...
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 18, 2011 17:40:07 GMT -5
I love Lord's work. And those are the first to "serious" Alamo books I had as a kid; Tinkle and Lord. Then, there was no stopping me; still can't.
|
|