|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 18, 2009 6:19:22 GMT -5
Guinn does point out how B&C's backgrounds of poverty left them with limited options, but he doesn't excuse their actions. He's quick to mention that plenty of people in similar circumstances did not choose to become criminals. I'm about 3/4 through the book, and find it to be an even handed account. I don't think Guinn romaticises these people. Jim I didn't mean to imply that Guinn romanticizes Clyde and Bonnie. This book is certainly the best and most factual book on their short and brutal lives. While he seems to dispel a lot of legends and deflates Bonnie as the cigar-chomping, gun-toting feme fatale, Guinn takes it a little easy on Clyde's early crimes. Barrow was more than a mere car thief before he met Bonnie or was sent to state prison. In a 1929 national bolo report, he is identified as an escaped prisoner and murderer. Clyde killed or assisted in the shootings of at least 13 people (9 were law enforcement officers) and I don't think he's deserving of much sympathy. Poor Bonnie has become more of a pathetic victim and gang tag along over the years. I'll delve into my copy of the book and I apologize for straying further off topic.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Nov 18, 2009 10:11:55 GMT -5
That is true. Guinn points out that Clyde murdered a fellow inmate who had repeatedly raped him. I don't think the book is off base in attempting to explain how the environment the pair grew up in might have contributed to their choices, and Guinn does point out that a life of crime was a choice despite the circumstances. I find myself better able to understand the motivation, even if I'd never condone the actions. But then, I also tend to agree with Guinn's philosophy that society is somewhat complicit when it allows slums like the West Dallas of the 1930's to fester. (I might as well be upfront with my liberal bias. ) After you've read the book, we should open another thread on the topic. It's certainly Texas/Ranger related. Best, Jim
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 19, 2009 6:09:19 GMT -5
That is true. Guinn points out that Clyde murdered a fellow inmate who had repeatedly raped him. Well, that's an incident that supposedly happened a couple years later. I'm sure Clyde was raped at some point, but the story of his killing Big Ed Crowder seems really contrived and not based on contemporary evidence and witnesses. I think Crowder was killed by Aubrey Scalley only. Clyde's enviroment for the first 13 years of his life was the countryside around the Barrow Farm in Ellis County and his Uncle Frank's place in Navarro County, Texas. I also think he was heavily influenced by his big brother Buck and folk outlaws Jessie James and Billy The Kid. Guinn should have stressed Clyde's apparent frontier philosophy more than his brief West Dallas residency. West Dallas was poor and dilapidated in the 1830s, but I believe better off than a lot places with the oil industry, work for food programs, etc. I'm glad my step-grandma didn't run-off with some West Dallas hood and go on a killing spree. I've read the first couple chapters and I've already noticed that Guinn got Clyde's birth year wrong as 1910. He was actually born the year before. Another thread sounds like a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Nov 20, 2009 14:11:38 GMT -5
What I find so disturbing about this book, is that, I am now having a hard time visualizing David Crockett, both in real life flesh and blood and cinematically , at the Alamo. While I appreciate the very diverse interpretations by Fess Parker, Arthur Hunnicut, John Wayne and Billy Bob Thornton, this book demonstates how flawed they are. I quess it is a classic case of Congress has ruined many a good man.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Nov 20, 2009 14:24:05 GMT -5
What I find so disturbing about this book, is that, I am now having a hard time visualizing David Crockett, both in real life flesh and blood and cinematically , at the Alamo. While I appreciate the very diverse interpretations by Fess Parker, Arthur Hunnicut, John Wayne and Billy Bob Thornton, this book demonstates how flawed they are. I quess it is a classic case of Congress has ruined many a good man. Good one, Ken. Researching and writing this book certainly changed my mental image of Crockett forever. No less a hero but, certainly, a different kind of hero. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 20, 2009 20:13:30 GMT -5
I hear you also, Ken. Anyone coming to a new project about Crockett carries a lot of pre-conceived baggage. It's hard to put aside decades of images from Hollywood, pulp fiction, and error-prone Crockett biography. I have to say that it was not easy digging all of this information out and putting it in correct order, but we succeeded in the end. Thus, we present a very different picture of Crockett than I've seen in the literature, and certainly from Hollywood. But, I think that is all to the good. I recall an interview some years ago with Thomas Creamer regarding his biography of Babe Ruth. His inquisitor wanted to know if the Babe "was a nuts." Creamer said he was not, and that he was very gratified to find that out. We found a Crockett who was even more admirable and heroic than the fictionalized image of "Davy." He really was a good guy and a man of true courage, especially when the odds were against him, which they almost always were. That gave me a pretty clear idea of what he must have been like at the Alamo.
Thanks for your interest in the book and your observations.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 20, 2009 20:16:48 GMT -5
Only I didn't say "was a nuts"; this website cleans up our language even when we want to use it to make a point. I suppose I could have said that the guy wanted to know if the Babe "was excrement," but who wants to do that???
By the way, Jim and I agree that Fess Parker has come the closest to capturing the real Crockett on film. His performance mixes the legendary "Davy" with some lower-key glimpses of the Crockett who created that image and knew how and when to use it. He also captured a lot of Crockett's honesty.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Nov 20, 2009 20:58:07 GMT -5
I would have loved to have seen Billy Bob Thornton do a Land bill and Indian Removal bill in Congress, rather than a drink with Houston.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Nov 20, 2009 23:05:52 GMT -5
Billy Bob was kind of wasted in Alamo 2004, I think. I agree, that a scene about the land bill or Indian Removal would have been far more effective in showing Crockett's true nature. I think the script made Crockett appear unsure of himself, and I didn't find that to be the case with the real man. Some things I thought Hancock got right. I thought Crockett's relationship with Travis was handled well...with Bowie, not so much. Crockett wouldn't have been intimidated by Bowie at all. I also think his relationship with Sam Houston was overstated. While Crockett is known to have socialized with Houston on at least one occasion back east, I doubt seriously that he'd have been anxious to see Houston when he was in Texas. Houston was a staunch Jacksonian, and Crockett was very much in the opposition. I don't think he'd have trusted anyone that close to Jackson. It's also very clear that Crockett knew what was going on in Texas with regards to Santa Anna. The situation in Texas was reported in depth in most eastern newspapers, plus many of Crockett's Tennessee friends had already relocated. I don't think he made the trip primarily to get involved in the action (his family has stated as much), but mainly to take advantage of the offer of free land, which was always his focus in Tennessee. Military service that offered land as compensation was a good deal as far as he was concerned, and he jumped on the offer. Jim
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Nov 21, 2009 20:11:11 GMT -5
Just an observation. In his autobiography Crockett emphatically states how he hated his Creek War experience, yet on the campaign trail, like any good politician, he had no trouble making reference to the fact that he served.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 21, 2009 22:34:01 GMT -5
I think Crockett was very proud of his service in the Creek War -- and also was an astute enough politician to understand that his service was a plus on the campaign trail. I think his service was a mixed bag for him. He was proud to have responded to the call, but somewhat disappointed that a lot of his time was wasted. In Florida, for example, he seemed consigned to thankless missions and trying to provide food for the men. He also resented the second-class treatment he received from officers and saw that as a reflection of class prejudice. He relates a mission he undertook behind enemy lines to gather intelligence. When he reported his findings about enemy positions and strength, he was not believed or, as he put it, trusted by the officers to whom he reported. However, when an officer reported the same intelligence a while later, he WAS believed. Crockett never forgot, or forgave, that slight and saw it as an example of how people of his class were seen and treated.
Also, Crockett wrote his Narrative long after his service in the Creek War. I think he was genuinely revolted by the barbarism of war, but also aware that several Indian tribes had served as allies of the Americans, particularly the Cherokee, yet were subjected to Jacksons' removal policy anyway. Crockett saw that as an injustice and he was very outspoken about it. By 1834 that was more of an issue to him than the relative merits of his service. Also, John Chapman recalled that Crockett had written far more serious criticism of the treatment of Indians in his book, but that much of it was expunged by the publisher.
Nonetheless, Crockett spoke often of the ever-present threats that existed on the frontier from hostile Indians and foreign nations, particularly the British. He repeatedly noted the willingness of frontier people to respond to such threats by taking up arms and their service in local militia. Crockett was a colonel of militia --- a real title that he earned, not a ceremonial one. Such service was a given on the frontier and Crockett would have seen it as no different in Texas, where men were mustering in response to a military threat. He had signed up for such service in the Creek War and got virtually nothing for that; the promise of more than 4,000 acres of good land in return for a 90-day enlistment must have seemed a no-brainer to him. Remember, this was a man who had spent most of his political career trying to get legal title for his constituents to 160 acres of land, without success due to the bizarre nature of the Tennessee public land situation. When he learned of the 4,000+ acre offer from Texas in exchange for a short enlistment, he probably said "Where do I sign?"
I agree with Jim about Billy Bob's take on Crockett. It was just a bit to tentative and timid to reflect the man I found.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Nov 22, 2009 1:04:34 GMT -5
Just an observation. In his autobiography Crockett emphatically states how he hated his Creek War experience, yet on the campaign trail, like any good politician, he had no trouble making reference to the fact that he served. I found it interesting that "Sketches and Eccentricities," the first Crockett biography, made virtually no mention of his specific Creek War service, though it did mention his militia service in general terms. Crockett, despite his protestations, obviously provided much of the source material to James Strange French for "Sketches," so, at some point, he decided to add the graphic details of Indian warfare to the "Narrative," released under his own name. Maybe he felt that describing the warfare in such harrowing terms and voicing how much he hated the actions, in some way helped to explain his vote against Indian removal to his constituents. He might have thought the passages in the book strengthened his argument that the Indians were getting a bum deal. Just a thought. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Nov 29, 2009 13:42:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jan 11, 2010 11:23:17 GMT -5
Allen and I will be chatting with readers and answering questions about "Crockett in Congress" from January 18 - 31 on the Librarything site. Please drop by and join the discussion! www.librarything.comJim
|
|
paul
Full Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by paul on Jan 12, 2010 0:48:43 GMT -5
According to the BookTV Web site, Jim & Allen's appearance at the 2009 Texas Book Festival will air this Saturday, Jan. 16, on C-SPAN2.
The approximately 38-minute segment on their new Crockett book is scheduled at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
|
|