Stephen Ambrose’s Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest is the story of that company’s experience in World War II. It begins with the formation and training of the company and ends with its disbandment after the victory in Europe. The focus of the book is the bond forged by the men that allowed them to survive the horrors of war.
Band of Brothers is an excellent collection of war stories, although it can at times glorify the war in ways that those who fought might not. Indeed, sometimes it seems to break down into assorted tales of machismo. Its strength is its storytelling, though it is intellectually thin like most of Ambrose’s books. The language matches the tone, a more comfortable narrative rather than elegant or overbearing prose. While Band of Brothers might not appeal to serious historians who appreciate advancements in the field, it will appeal to a general audience looking for an entertaining and inspiring account of heroes.
I’ve read and enjoyed Stephen Ambrose books before. My favorites are Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West and Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors. Band of Brothers is not quite up to the standards of these or his other World War II narratives, but it is entertaining nonetheless. Ambrose comes under much criticism, perhaps deservedly so, for writing lightweight history. Truthfully, to a serious historian Ambrose’s best asset is his ability to collect interesting and highly personal tales and stitch them into single volumes. But he makes history accessible, which is more than can be said for most of the “serious” historians who criticize him. At very least, he filled a niche that few can.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Latest Reading
I recently finished Richard Matheson’s Somewhere in Time, which was turned into an eighties movie of the same name starring Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour. Matheson has written many books that have been adapted into movies, among them What Dreams May Come and I Am Legend. Somewhere in Time is the story of a dying man who falls in love with a deceased actress from another era and travels back in time to be with her. The book is functionally and intelligently written and its hypnotic appeal stems from the quality of the story. Matheson has created a world into which you are eager to return. Though the book is far from perfect, it has a degree of magic that infuses all good literature.
I watched the movie as well a few days later. It was a cute love story but lacked the intensity of the book. It just doesn’t seem as desperate of a tale, which was one of the book’s strengths.
I watched the movie as well a few days later. It was a cute love story but lacked the intensity of the book. It just doesn’t seem as desperate of a tale, which was one of the book’s strengths.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Latest Reading
Eugene Genovese’s Roll, Jordan, Roll is a classic that every future history scholar should read. One of the definitive texts on the subject of slavery, it stands among a handful of books that shaped the field. As the subtitle suggests, in studying slave culture Genovese has found that slaves had remarkable agency over their lives in the midst of a brutally oppressive regime. The slaves adapted to the crime committed upon them and created their own world. Genovese best sums this up on page 317: “Slavery, a particularly savage system of oppression and exploitation, made its slaves victims. But the human beings it made victims did not consent to be just that; they struggled to make life bearable and to find as much joy in it as they could.”
Perhaps Genovese’s underlying thesis is that the system of paternalism developed by the masters to justify their rule inadvertently humanized their slaves and a delicate balance of rights and responsibilities developed on both sides. The two classes became dependent on each other and, for the most part, respected the customs that were set in place. Genovese explores this theme topically, covering the daily lives of slaves and masters, slave religion and ethics, house slaves and field hands, and resistance and accommodation to slavery.
Genovese is a Marxist historian and his work reflects this. The language and the topics he chooses to explore naturally match his interests. For example, he frequently compares slavery to conditions elsewhere in the developing industrial world which he finds just as bleak except for the mental anguish of the enslaved. Indeed, he defines slavery as a class struggle in racial form.
Perhaps at times the work is intellectually deeper than it needs to be but this only adds to the encyclopedic nature of the study. Genovese chiefly employs an exhaustive list of primary sources from the era but the frequent use of firsthand examples can cause the work to bog down at times. The language is functional and little more. Despite a few shortcomings, Roll, Jordan, Roll stands among a handful of texts vital to the understanding of the history of slavery. Encyclopedic in nature, it might be the best general account of the era published in recent history.
Perhaps Genovese’s underlying thesis is that the system of paternalism developed by the masters to justify their rule inadvertently humanized their slaves and a delicate balance of rights and responsibilities developed on both sides. The two classes became dependent on each other and, for the most part, respected the customs that were set in place. Genovese explores this theme topically, covering the daily lives of slaves and masters, slave religion and ethics, house slaves and field hands, and resistance and accommodation to slavery.
Genovese is a Marxist historian and his work reflects this. The language and the topics he chooses to explore naturally match his interests. For example, he frequently compares slavery to conditions elsewhere in the developing industrial world which he finds just as bleak except for the mental anguish of the enslaved. Indeed, he defines slavery as a class struggle in racial form.
Perhaps at times the work is intellectually deeper than it needs to be but this only adds to the encyclopedic nature of the study. Genovese chiefly employs an exhaustive list of primary sources from the era but the frequent use of firsthand examples can cause the work to bog down at times. The language is functional and little more. Despite a few shortcomings, Roll, Jordan, Roll stands among a handful of texts vital to the understanding of the history of slavery. Encyclopedic in nature, it might be the best general account of the era published in recent history.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Oops
I typically watch some of the Today show on NBC in the mornings while I’m getting ready for the day. I’m not a big fan of Meredith and I doubt I ever will be. She was eulogizing Tim Russert this morning, someone I always looked forward to hearing. She paraphrased the Bible, saying “his cup runneth over,” a verse she claimed came from the Lord’s Prayer. Oops, that actually comes from Psalm 23, though I doubt she realized her mistake. If you’re going to quote the Bible, Meredith, make sure you know what you’re talking about
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Latest Reading
Before there was the Left Behind books, there was Hal Lindsey. His The Late Great Planet Earth was one of the bestselling books of the 1970s, based on his interpretation of the Biblical book of Revelation. I recently read Lindsey’s There’s a New World Coming, a book probably out of print. I found it in the freebie bin and thought it worth the effort since The Late Great Planet Earth has been on my list of books to read probably since soon after I started the list. The book is Lindsey’s verse by verse explanation of Revelation, much like Tim LaHaye’s Revelation Unveiled.
Not much has changed about the interpretations of Revelation since C.I. Schofield popularized them in American culture in 1903. For those looking for a truly fascinating book, pick up an illustrated copy of the Schofield Bible. You’ll soon see why it was so influential. So much of evangelical Christianity is traced back to the interpretations. Only the nuances have changed. For example, Lindsey sees much of the coming disasters as nuclear in nature. Historically, that was a big issue when he was writing. Looking back, it’s easy to see how the subtleties have changed to include such things as terrorism and biological warfare which seem more pressing to us now.
Lindsey employs basic, easy to understand language and has a talent for simplifying complex concepts. For example, he gives the most accessible explanation I’ve seen of the differences between pre-, a-, and post-millennialism in chapter 20. At times, his writing can seem too casual in an attempt to be hip. Still, the work is an interesting book for anyone interested in the subject, not just people like me who are fascinated by anything apocalyptic. The trick is to realize that interpretations of Revelation are largely contextual. I unequivocally believe the Bible is divinely inspired. There’s a truth out there but too often we impose out sense of history upon it.
Not much has changed about the interpretations of Revelation since C.I. Schofield popularized them in American culture in 1903. For those looking for a truly fascinating book, pick up an illustrated copy of the Schofield Bible. You’ll soon see why it was so influential. So much of evangelical Christianity is traced back to the interpretations. Only the nuances have changed. For example, Lindsey sees much of the coming disasters as nuclear in nature. Historically, that was a big issue when he was writing. Looking back, it’s easy to see how the subtleties have changed to include such things as terrorism and biological warfare which seem more pressing to us now.
Lindsey employs basic, easy to understand language and has a talent for simplifying complex concepts. For example, he gives the most accessible explanation I’ve seen of the differences between pre-, a-, and post-millennialism in chapter 20. At times, his writing can seem too casual in an attempt to be hip. Still, the work is an interesting book for anyone interested in the subject, not just people like me who are fascinated by anything apocalyptic. The trick is to realize that interpretations of Revelation are largely contextual. I unequivocally believe the Bible is divinely inspired. There’s a truth out there but too often we impose out sense of history upon it.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Latest Reading
I finished The Horse Whisperer, by Nicholas Evans, a book through which I’ve been plodding for some time now. It was mostly functional entertainment. The story was worth reading though not something that would change your life. The writing flowed well even if it was far from excellent.
I paused before I read the final chapter. One of the main characters had died and, frankly, it pissed me off. I think authors who end novels poorly or sadly are cruel. If you invest enough energy to finish their book, you should be rewarded with a happy ending. I was upset because I thought the author couldn’t think of a good way to tie up loose ends so he took the easy way out and killed a character. It didn’t pass the reality test. But somehow the last chapter turned it around. I found it very touching and forgave all former shortcomings. In the end, I’m glad I read the book even if I could have just as easily read something else.
I paused before I read the final chapter. One of the main characters had died and, frankly, it pissed me off. I think authors who end novels poorly or sadly are cruel. If you invest enough energy to finish their book, you should be rewarded with a happy ending. I was upset because I thought the author couldn’t think of a good way to tie up loose ends so he took the easy way out and killed a character. It didn’t pass the reality test. But somehow the last chapter turned it around. I found it very touching and forgave all former shortcomings. In the end, I’m glad I read the book even if I could have just as easily read something else.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Questions Inspired By The Latest Reading
Frederick Jackson Turner’s greatest value as a historian might be the sweeping questions he proposed. He argued that the frontier defined America. So what does that mean in the big picture? How then should we view ourselves? If his theories are true, what must we reevaluate? Here are some deep issues on which your average American will never dwell, but which inspire me:
Did Federalism die because of expansion? The death of the Federalists, a somewhat elitist party best defined by Alexander Hamilton that met its end with the rise of Jefferson, coincided with the rise of the American West and its political power. Is this coincidence or truly the result of a population shift away from the Eastern Seaboard? Was this one of the few times in American history that the poor had enough concentrated votes to overrule the wealthy?
Did democratic forces create an undemocratic monster? One of the results of unbridled democracy was the concentration of power and wealth into a few hands, Social Darwinism before it had a name. Is there a way to balance independence and social responsibility or are they naturally incompatible?
Is it a myth that America succeeded because of democracy? America continued to grow as a power because there was room to grow. Is there more to the story or did it even matter what form of government the country had? If this is the case, is American democracy given too much credit as the best form of government? Could American democracy succeed without the odds being stacked in its favor?
Did Federalism die because of expansion? The death of the Federalists, a somewhat elitist party best defined by Alexander Hamilton that met its end with the rise of Jefferson, coincided with the rise of the American West and its political power. Is this coincidence or truly the result of a population shift away from the Eastern Seaboard? Was this one of the few times in American history that the poor had enough concentrated votes to overrule the wealthy?
Did democratic forces create an undemocratic monster? One of the results of unbridled democracy was the concentration of power and wealth into a few hands, Social Darwinism before it had a name. Is there a way to balance independence and social responsibility or are they naturally incompatible?
Is it a myth that America succeeded because of democracy? America continued to grow as a power because there was room to grow. Is there more to the story or did it even matter what form of government the country had? If this is the case, is American democracy given too much credit as the best form of government? Could American democracy succeed without the odds being stacked in its favor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
