GDG- Killing Lincoln
CWMHTours at aol.com
CWMHTours at aol.com
Sun Jan 15 11:26:03 CST 2012
Hi Phil- Here's my tastes- and my point.
I read Killer Angels, not as history but hostorical fiction. I loved it.
But I got 1/2way through Gods and Generals and there was so much
speculative indulging into the characters thoughts and conversations that there was
no record of I threw it at the wall.
I think I gave it to a young kid who didn't know about the Civil War and
said "Here!"
Never finished it and I wouldn't unless I was in jail and had the choice
of reading it or staring at the walls.
"Just the facts, ma'am." Sgt. Joe Friday. Dragnet.
Your Most Obediant Servant
In a message dated 1/15/2012 12:14:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pvitiello1 at comcast.net writes:
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Peter a fair question, that's why I was careful to use the word "most" in
my comment. I was referring less to the O' Reilly book (which I have read).
I'll say this that it does drive me crazy when I read book when the author
writes history with supposing to know what someone may have said or
thought based only on the whim of that author. it bothers me more when certain
"known" historical facts are presented wrong weather in a book or movie.
just shows a lack of a certain laziness to get it right knowing
that people who don't know better will now take that it is fact. That
being said I've mellowed some over the last 50 years of my interest in our
history that if a book, even if with errors in it can either inspire or
enlighten our youth in our history than that is a good thing.
Peter thank you for replying. hope I made some sense here on my thoughts
on this.
Phil
new haven Ct
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 15, 2012, at 9:33 AM, CWMHTours at aol.com wrote:
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Phil-
>
> Should I understand that in agreement with Chet that you think it is OK
to
> mix fiction with fact and then publicly call it history and try to sell
it
> that way?
>
> Your Most Obedient Servant,
> Peter
>
>
> In a message dated 1/15/2012 9:30:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> pvitiello1 at comcast.net writes:
>
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> I'm sure no one hear will recognize my name. I've followed GDG for
several
> years now and only posted once. Having following this current thread I
> feel compelled to leave a quick comment that I agree with most of Chets
> statements. I feel his grasp and understanding how history is recorded
and how
> historians over the years perceive what should be considered fact and
what is
> not is spot on.
>
> Phil Vitiello
> NH Ct.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 14, 2012, at 6:14 PM, Matt Diestel <agatematt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>>
>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>>
>>
>>
>>> So, Chet, if a book inserts make believe events into the naration you
>>> would still call that "history"?
>>>
>>> Your Most Obedient Servant,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> The amount --- and supposed seriousness --- of the errors in "Killing
>>> Lincoln" by all indication is a matter that is still much in dispute.
> That
>>> is certainly reinforced by the variety of opinions that have been
> posted by
>>> esteemed members in this discussion thread.
>>>
>> In direct answer to your question, would I call a book which
"inserts
>> make believe events into the narration .. "history?" --- No, I would
not
>> but then in regards to "Killing Lincoln" that is an accusation which
has
>> not yet been proved to my satisfaction.
>> Too often, when one person sees a set of possible historical actions
> in
>> one way and accepts it and then writes it in anything from book form
to a
>> discussion point in this group, there are some who refuse to take it as
>> simply an interpretation with which they disagree with and instead is
is
>> something that is at best historical error and at worse something
>> nefarious.
>> People can --- and do --- see historical "facts" in different ways. As
>> an example, I will point to the many discussions this group has had
over
>> the years as to what Stuart was suppose to do at Gettysburg on July 3.
>> There are those who take it as a historical certainty that Lee gave
his
>> cavalry commander specific orders to place himself on the Union flank
to
>> attack when the forces of Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble broke the AOP line
> and
>> forced that army to retreat. Other esteemed members believe that to be
so
>> much non-historical hogwash, but I have yet to read a member accusing
>> another of fabricating the truth because they see facts in a different
>> light.
>> Besides, what is truly a fact. Given that much of the narrative of
any
>> event is based upon the gathering of evidence from eye-witnesses, all
of
>> whom may see the same event slightly different or radically
differently.
>> That is evident by just going to the Official Records and read the
after
>> battle reports of units which opposed each other. More often than not,
> the
>> text reads in a way to make it seem that neither unit was not on the
same
>> piece of the battlefield but probably not on the same planet.
>> OK, which author's work is the lie? And which one should historians
>> choose? And if they choose one then do those who take the other side as
>> gospel then have the right to label the opponent's version as having
>> inserted "make believe events."
>> With regards,
>> Chet
>>
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
> -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
More information about the Gettysburg
mailing list