|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 14, 2010 19:57:32 GMT -5
I haven't read this book in ages. For some reason, I pulled it off the shelf this weekend, knocked a pound of dust off the pages, and started reading it. I didn't remember all that much about it, beyond the account of the battle.
I find myself reading this book with fresh insight on the events leading up to the siege. I am ashamed to admit I never recalled the richness of the characters Walter Lord describes early on. Forget about Crockett and Travis and bowie -- I'm talking about the common man and their families. There is such a treasure of information in these pages. But then, most of you probably already know this.
I really think the discussions and research shared here on this forum has brought more meaning for me about this book. I realize that maybe research and discoveries since Lord wrote this book may have altered some of the information Lord writes about. But this is still such a fresh volume, and one worthy of revisiting, as I have started doing this weekend.
I first read "A Time To Stand" as a much younger boy -- a young teen, I think -- sometime in the early or mid-1960s. I acquired the book I now have maybe 14 years ago. I really feel like I'm both rediscovering an old friend and at the same time, meeting that friend for the first time.
Has anyone else had an experience like this, about any Alamo book or film?
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 14, 2010 21:32:48 GMT -5
Paul, while both A Time To Stand and 13 Days To Glory are dated, they are still well crafted works. I think no book written on the Alamo can still matched the final few paragraphes of 13 Days...and Lord's works are all still something I enjoy. In class once we had to write a few lines about who are favorite historian was and why and I still was drawn to Lord. Ok, both he and Tinkle got some stuff wrong, but as narrative history, I still think they are still excellent works. So, really have to agree with you on this...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 15, 2010 14:56:23 GMT -5
You're absolutely right about "13 Days To Glory" -- the book, not the movie. In fact, I recall reading that when I was even younger, I think. I don't have a copy of that, but perhaps I should put that one on my shopping list as well.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 16, 2010 6:50:55 GMT -5
I don't think there's a narrative history of the Alamo more compelling than "A Time to Stand." I read it again a couple of years ago, and Lord is just very hard to beat as a writer in that genre. As you point out, there's new information now available but, for many of us, Lord's book launched lifelong interests in history.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 16, 2010 9:20:39 GMT -5
Lord has always been one of my favorite writers for those very reasons. I've read both his Titanic books more than once as well as "The Dawn's Early Light." All well done and well written.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 16, 2010 10:07:49 GMT -5
I've read some of his other books as well, although it's been many, many years since. Most folks of my generation (me included) usually point to The Disney/Fess Parker tv show as the event that hooked them on the Alamo. In reality, and more accurately, Disney may have lit the fire, but it only led me a few years later to "13 Days To Glory" and ultimately "A Time To Stand". Lord sealed the deal for me, but all three played a role in fueling my life-long interest in the Alamo. Very compelling story telling.
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on Feb 16, 2010 12:30:18 GMT -5
I too gravitated to Lord's book as a teenager, some years after being hooked by the Davy Crockett craze. Not having the depth and breadth of knowledge as most of the contributors, but assuming there are other more-or-less silent readers of this forum, I wonder if the cognescenti could enlighten us on some of the specific areas where later research proved Lord to be wrong. Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 16, 2010 13:32:59 GMT -5
Jesse, I don't know if I'd call it "wrong" as much as an assumption on Lord's part, but I can't find any reference in a primary source that indicates the palisade came under direct assault. I know that's in ATTS. Also, some discoveries came after Lord published...the Sesma account, for example, and DLP wasn't available in an English translation either. Archaeological evidence pertaining to the battle and compound continues to add information that wasn't available to Lord. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 16, 2010 14:08:12 GMT -5
Lord did use de la Pena and hired a translator for the purpose; he also cites Caro's memoir in his bibliogrphy, although his work is frustratingly without footnotes. Lord was unwittingly the source of the false conclusion that de la Pena had published his memoir in 1836, when it was never published in his lifetime or before 1955. This error was caused by the translator, who was misled by Sanchez Garza's fake "title page," even though SG's preamble clearly states that the work had never been previously published.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 16, 2010 14:20:45 GMT -5
Yes, Jesse, I'm certainly no expert -- I've gained some knowledge based on my own readings and thinking and from this site -- but Jim has it right. Much has been learned (and continues to be learned) since Lord wrote the book. I'd agree that evidence seems to point to there not being a direct assault on the pallisades. It's been more than 40 years since "A Time To Stand" was first written and published. "Speculation" is a good way to term some of the points Lord made, but in truth there is much about the Alamo story that remains speculation at best, because that's all we have. It's an incomplete puzzle where some pieces fit perfectly, but somehow, there are a few missing pieces that we can't find to fit. Any writer can only make a best educated guess given the various sources and research to speculate about whether this was done or that.
In my opinion, Lord really has it pretty much right, and I can't find much real fault with those pieces left to his own speculation. I have read and learned a lot since I first reac this book in the '60s, and since reading again more than a dozen years ago. In reading his account I found so much of it fresh. I especially loved his portraits of the common man who died defending the Alamo. For most visitors, these are mere names carved on a monument in the Plaza, perhaps. But Lord dug out these stories and put real flesh and blood and bones to some of those names. After all, Travis-Bowie-Crockett are just three of the 180- to perhaps as many as 250 souls who made a stand and died defending the Alamo. The others all had stories, families, hopes and dreams as well. Lord brings the story down to what I call the common man.
Any telling in the story is going to have flaws. Lord's is an exceptional, time-tested piece of work. It doesn't get much better.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 16, 2010 14:51:28 GMT -5
I'd have to agree with that, Paul. If someone asked me what book to read if they knew nothing about the Alamo, I'd point to Lord right away. It not only still holds up, it is one of the best-written accounts and has worn well for a half century. Considering how fluid the Alamo story is, that's pretty remarkable.
I also recall receiving "Thirteen Days to Glory" as kid and revelling in my first "real" Alamo book. That one does not hold up so well, but it's still a prized possession. Tinkle's ancestor, Lindsay Tinkle, travelled to Texas with Crockett.
Two other dated Alamo books that I really enjoyed were John Myers Myers' "The Alamo" and the paperback by Steve Frazee that was issued as a kind of tie in to Wayne's movie in 1960. Both excellent reads.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 16, 2010 14:57:22 GMT -5
Yep, Lord is usually my recommendation to anyone asking for a good introduction to the history of the Alamo battle. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 16, 2010 23:15:01 GMT -5
Yep, Lord is usually my recommendation to anyone asking for a good introduction to the history of the Alamo battle. Jim I don't know how many copies of Lord's book I recommended and sold to folks via the IMAX Gift shop. For the person who did not want a heavely footnoted more academic book, it as always the one I would recommend-and probably still would. It is still a good place for one to get started and go from there. And, if I could grab only five books from the shelf in case of society as we know it ending, A Time To Stand would be one of them.
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on Feb 17, 2010 23:23:54 GMT -5
I guess it was from Lord that I got the impression that Crockett and his cohorts were assigned to defend the palisade, which was considered the weakest wall, and that they did such a good job that the first breach was at the north wall. I always thought that was cool. Now you're telling me that the palisade was never assaulted at all? Go ahead, shatter my illusions. How do we know this? Jesse
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 18, 2010 9:09:31 GMT -5
|
|