|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 4, 2010 11:20:03 GMT -5
I know this might contradict what I said about my desire not to buy and read "Exodus ... ", but I guess that might have to be the sole exception to the point I'm about to make.
In the past year or so, my Alamo library has grown from about two books to almost too many to count. Pretty much all the suggested/recommended books named on this site have found their way into my collection. I recently bought and just finished reading "13 Days to Glory" for the first time since around 1960 (when I was maybe 10 or 11). What an eye-opener re-reading it all these years has been.
For one, it stands up very well, although more recent research has pointed to a few errors, or new interpretations. Still, it is excellent story-telling, and shows that the author did his homework in the way he presented the story. I'm now going through "Eyewitness to the Alamo (Revised)". BTW, "Eyewitness" along with "The Alamo Reader" work well together, IMO.
My point in all this is, I wonder how many folks buy and read one book on a given subject, then pretend to have it all figured out? What struck me in the re-reading of "13 Days" is a sense of how various aspects of the Alamo story -- facts, myths, legends, whatever -- have evolved. What's really tying all this together for me is "Eyewitness" where various letters from the defenders and Mexicans are presented in order, by date, as well as the various published accounts attributed to people such as Susanna Dickenson, Joe and so on.
What I am getting is a more total picture of the myths and facts, the evolution of the story ... and the stories about the story. You can't do that from one (or even two books). Some things we'll never know with certainty, but looking at multiple sources can help mold and maybe even support your own personal conclusions regarding things like Crockett's death, or the "line in the sand" (both of which I think Tinkle handled extremely well), for example. As more legitimate research takes place and is reported in some new book or article on the subject, the better informed all of us will be.
This site, and the Alamo Society's members and newsletter have really broadened my knowledge of a subject I hold near and dear to me. Pointing me to these invaluable resources (books and such) really drives the point home. Some of my non-Alamo buddies think I'm nuts, I'm sure. For example, one co-worker recently told me she isn't going to see an Alamo movie or read an Alamo book "until the ending changes." Well, yes, we know how that siege and battle ended, but there is a whole lot more to this story, isn't there? And that's why I'll keep on reading all I can about it (well, with "Exodus" the one exception, perhaps) ...
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 4, 2010 11:40:54 GMT -5
Even worse, Paul, are the people who don't bother to read anything and base their opinions on movies. Films can be a great entry point to a subject, but shouldn't be accepted as definitive.
Informed opinions aren't come by easily. Research is a lot of work, and not everyone is willing to expend the effort.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 4, 2010 11:44:45 GMT -5
So True, Jim.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 5, 2010 0:31:39 GMT -5
Paul, the quantum leap Alamology has taken in the last 50 years is astounding. Lon Tinkle's gift was that he made the findings in Amelia Williams' 1931 thesis readable and visual. His was my first book on the Alamo -- in fact, my first book. The storytelling is still the best. But Tinkle just printed the tradition as it had locked in by that time -- largely as a result of Ms. Williams who did an astounding amount of research... and conjecture.
Walter Lord's A Time To Stand took the next major step by not taking Amelia's word for anything. Doing his own primary research, he revealed a lot of her (and others') faulty interpretations -- like revealing her seeming bias against Travis and pointing out (in a later article) that the Laurence Harvey priggish approach to the character derived from this erroneous 1931 vision. Lord also took the scary step of presenting some of the less approved versions of details like Crockett's death and the line in the sand.
In the meantime, Hollywood (Disney and Duke) inspired a whole new army of "Alamo Defenders" and thus assured further digging and conjecture.
The thoroughness and focus of folks like Groneman, Covner, Huffines, Zaboly, Ivey, Lemon, Lindley, Young, et. al., is, I believe, the result of all of the above.
So thorough, in fact, that we even have the advantage of looking at sources from various angles. You mentioned how Eyewitness to the Alamo brought it all together for you in ways the early books did not, and I think this is very significant. Bill presented accounts for the first time in the order that they hit the streets, so we finally get a chance to clearly understand that some comment Susanna Dickinson was said to have told a second party in the 1870's who gave it to the press at some later point doesn't perhaps carry the same weight as a comment given under oath at a much earlier time when being questioned by a judge on various members of the garrison for family land claims.
Then, in Blood of Nobel Men, Alan Huffines presents these eyewitness accounts in segments relating to the individual days of the siege. Now you have everything everybody who was there or might have been there said about each moment.
Absorbing, understanding and placing all this still depends on the reader having a basic understanding of the whole story from a complete narrative. Now perhaps it is better that this narrative be Hardin or Edmondson rather than one of the earlier books, no matter how well written, but they in turn become our Alamo heritage collection and due all honor.
It's just mind-boggling to me to imagine somebody like you -- or Dustin (ValeroBowie) -- jumping in the middle of all this at this late date and trying to make sense of it. Bravo, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 5, 2010 7:32:11 GMT -5
Well, not really at such a late date. I'm an older dog (61) and like so many others here, first heard of the Alamo when I saw Fess and Disney's David Crockett series when I was maybe six or seven. Next up was John Wayne's Alamo and the two early books you mentioned: "13 Days" and "A Time to Stand". But beyond reading those books back in the early '60s, I hadn't seen or read much else about the Alamo until discovering this site, and if memory serves me right, I searched out and found this site thanks to a movie site that was up in advance of the 2004 Alamo movie. I had a foundation -- although a weak one, and like many people's, based more on Hollywood than real research. My passion for the Alamo has never waned (not to be confused with Wayned from when I was a kid watching Fess and Buddy at the Alamo, it has only grown. I see the future in the younger folks here -- people like Wade Dillon -- who weren't even born when Fess and Wayne portrayed Crockett, or books like "13 Days" and "A Time to Stand" were first published. Yet, they share the same passion and love of the subject, and the desire to learn and discover. Who knows what will be learned or discovered in the years and decades to come, but I think we all agree the final chapter has not been written. Paul
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Jul 5, 2010 11:16:11 GMT -5
I think it is that Alamo gene we all have in us!!!
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Jul 5, 2010 20:18:25 GMT -5
I too am in my sixties, and for the past thirty seven years have been visiting the Alamo twice a year for this span of time. Upon my last visit this past February, I still felt the same sense of reverence and awe for what happened on those grounds, that I felt on my first visit back in the early 70s. As for reading, my Alamo library is fairly extensive. I think I own everything that was in print in the early 70s and have added any thing new since then. My question to our scholarly forum members is, how do you sort it all out. As new materials have become available, and if they presented "facts" that were contrary to previous information, It has just seemed to confuse me. I will say this though, The worst interpretation of the story I have ever read, or the worst Alamo movie I have ever seen, It is still one of the greatest stories ever told, and I eagerly watch and read them all.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 6, 2010 7:30:42 GMT -5
Good questions. Although I'm not sure if I'd count myself among "our scholarly forum members", I can give you my take on what you ask.
Sorting it all out in any semblance of order can be daunting. When you read some of the better known books -- "13 Days" and "Time to Stand", for example -- the narrations (although they do have some reference notes in the back) are presented as factual info. In a sense, they are factual in that someone said or reported or wrote those things at some point in time, with much of it becoming part of the Alamo legend. "Alamo Reader" is a great resource and encompasses a lot of those bits and pieces of the story. "Eyewitness to the Alamo (Revised Edition)" has been a huge help to me by pulling everything -- fact and fiction and a lot of stuff in between -- in some sort of chronological order according to the date a given letter was written or the date an account was published or a public statement made. I can't recommend "Eyewitness" strongly enough.
At the end of the day, though, we still have to face the reality that we just don't know with absolute certainty everything about the Alamo. Did Travis draw a line in the sand? Did Crockett surrender, beg for mercy, or die swinging his rife and killing countless Mexicans before finally going down? Did Alba Fuqua really burst into the church's room, holding his shattered jaw, and trying to utter something to Susanna Dickenson? Did Travis shoot himself in the head or fall dead, victim of a shot fired in the darkness early on in the battle? And so on ...
What all of us are left with are the various accounts, given at various times, with scant evidence. Like a good criminal jury, it really is left to each of us to weigh the evidence and testimony, and draw our own conclusions about those facets of the Alamo. Just as the jury wasn't at the crime scene when the event took place, neither were any of us present to witness the Alamo's siege and fall.
In my mind, much of the stuff in question is not an issue for me. Does it really matter how David Crockett died? Not to me. The line in the sand is a great story, whether it happened or not ... and in a sense, a line was drawn at some point -- whether figuratively or in actuality -- and all (except maybe a man named Rose) chose to cross it and stand with Travis until the end. Does it really matter whether WBT realy drew a sword and scratched a line in the dirt? I don't think so.
Finally -- I love watching all the old Alamo movies, inaccuracies and all, too. Well, with one exception. The film version of "13 Days to Glory" is pretty darn bad. I watched it on the tube last summer and doubt I'll suffer through that abomination again. Lon Tinkle's book by the same name is great though. But I love Wayne's Alamo and even enjoyed the 2004 movie, warts and all, as well.
Some day, we might discover the missing pieces to some of the lingering questions about the Alamo. Maybe. But don't you think it's these unanswered (and maybe unanswerable) questions that makes this story so compelling to folks like us? Maybe it's best some mysteries remain just that.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Jul 6, 2010 10:34:29 GMT -5
Paul, I appreciate your thoughts and truly do value your opinions, and the opinions of other posters on this forum. I also agree that many of the "issues" that get most of the ink don't really matter. It is a story chuck full of heroism and sacrifice,(both sides) and the greater part of the charm is the unknown. I for one hope that I should never have all the facts. The journey is far more important and interesting than the final verdict.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 6, 2010 21:00:33 GMT -5
I think it has a lot to do with what you want from your personal Alamo. The story seems to respond to all our individual needs and rewards them engagingly.
Some of us are particularly interested in the architecture and layout of the physical Alamo. Others might get more kicks from studying the intricacies of the siege and battle. Still others will be fascinated by the concept of people under extreme pressure. The politics of the story might also be the centerfold for some. And many are interested mildly in all these things -- and others.
I am probably more fascinated by the psychological end of it: what these men and women did under the extroadinary pressure of the moment. I'm not as concerned with whether they did what some people think they *should* have done as I am with the variety of ways they might have responded. Some were brave, some scared, some wanted to get out, some were particularly patriotic. Thus, I have little patience with the belief that they all just thought one thing.
As for the primary material, the more I read what a particular individual wrote, the more capable I am of understanding how that individual thought and what his behavior would have been under pressure. I want my primary material to be unedited -- not selectively presented to meet some historian's personal agenda or bias. Thus my rocks are books like The Alamo Reader and all ten volumes of Papers of the Texas Revolution.
All this said, at this point in my Alamo study, I have found myself forming what I consider to be solid opinions about what happened, and this helps me "sort out" everything. Bowie's a good example. I now believe that Bowie was terminal and very close to death by March 6, but, having learned as much as I have about the man, I firmly believe that he would have fought to the last IF he was able. We just don't know, and that doesn't bother me. If he died before they attacked, it doesn't bother me.
Crockett's the same way for me. He didn't beg off. I KNOW the man. I've read his autobiography, many of his letters and what contemporaries said about him. People remain basically what they are, to the end. Crockett was a simple, honest and brave man. Attitudes about his being captured no longer bother me because, if he was, I believe he would have made a good showing of himself under those circumstances. That's why I like John Lee Hancock and Billy Bob Thornton's interpretation of the execution theory so much. He dies an even braver death than if he were fighting.
So, for me, reading their own writings provides the best compass for guiding me through the events, just like getting to know a friend very well allows you to have a pretty good idea how he or she will react to things.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 6, 2010 22:53:19 GMT -5
Paul, I hope you're not still shaving.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 7, 2010 6:23:10 GMT -5
Paul, I hope you're not still shaving. Tweezers, brother. Tweezers ... (lol) I'm pretty much drawn to the total package, including the physical Alamo and the lay of the land. My last trip to SA (last week), including a walk through La Villita (for a sense of where some of the batteries were in relationship to the Alamo) and up East Commerce (to show my wife the marker indicating where at least some of the bodies were piled and burned). Like the surviving bits of the Alamo, I've visited these areas several times in the past, but as I learn more, find it interesting to revisit these sites for a fresh perspective. The psychological aspects intrigues me, as well. I'm guessing it is so with most everyone who gets into the Alamo story. How can you not? Whenever I see the Wayne Alamo movie, I am intrigued by the scene of the men, standing on the walls, watching the Mexicans arrive on the scene. I can't imagine how the real defenders must have felt, seeing such overwhelming numbers pour in to Bexar, or seeing the noose tightening a little bit more each day, as the batteries inched closer to their walls. Or the utter hopelessness they must have felt, as each day passed without the expected reinforcements. You can't think about the Alamo without questioning yourself as to what you would have done under those circumstances. I know I've asked myself that question many, many times. These were, after all, common, everyday men thrust in an uncommon situation. Yes, the "headliners" are there -- Crockett, Bowie, Travis -- but it really comes down to the little guys who cast their fate with the leaders at the Alamo. I, too, liked Billy Bob Thornton's Crockett portrayal for pretty much the same reason. I'm not so sure I believe the real Crockett died that way, but it strikes me as being in Crockett's real life character to go out in such a manner. But, it doesn't matter to me whether Crockett surrendered or not, or whether Travis drew a line or not, or whether 10 or 100 men made a run for it outside of the walls. The Alamo represents much more any or all of that. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 7, 2010 9:45:08 GMT -5
I agree with you, Rich. Reading a person's letters and other writing transports you inside the person's head...you become more than an observer, especially after you've spent a lot of time with the canon.
It makes for a very different perspective.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by tracesoftexas on Sept 18, 2010 9:41:45 GMT -5
And yet, and this is what makes it ultimately so interesting to me, is that you can read a man's letters, read his books, read the accounts of others about him ----- and still not know him. the, you may know what he thought about something at one point in his life, but the sum total of his private thoughts, concerns, perspectives etc... remains ever elusive.
Heck, we don't even know ourselves. As Goethe said, "Know thyself? If I knew myself, I'd run away."
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 18, 2010 12:38:10 GMT -5
And yet, and this is what makes it ultimately so interesting to me, is that you can read a man's letters, read his books, read the accounts of others about him ----- and still not know him. the, you may know what he thought about something at one point in his life, but the sum total of his private thoughts, concerns, perspectives etc... remains ever elusive. Heck, we don't even know ourselves. As Goethe said, "Know thyself? If I knew myself, I'd run away." Perhaps, but it's as close as we're likely to get to those people. We know a lot more about what George Washington thought from his official correspondence; a lot less about him as a person because his widow burned all of his personal letters. The reverse is true for John Adams. Allen
|
|