This is probably the leading complete history of the Civil War, which for me means there is a great opportunity for someone to write something better....moreThis is probably the leading complete history of the Civil War, which for me means there is a great opportunity for someone to write something better.
Good things: 1. Good turn of phrase. 2. Good ability to paint a full personality.
Problems: 1. Too strong a bias in favor of South. 2. Too strong a bias in favor of covering less important western action. 3. Too much filler. Could have trimmed 25%-33% of total words. 4. For me, needed more and better maps, with dates and times on them. 5. Would have benefitted from a "Cast of Players" list so reader could keep straight on who various military figures were, and provide refresher on where one had last read about them. 6. Most importantly, Mr. Foote should have gotten a few more hours of tutoring on basic military art. A stronger reader than I might take on the assignment of counting what seemed like a reuse of "Cannae" hundreds of times during the trilogy. 7. Andersonville deserved at least a paragraph. Can only attribute to Southern protectionism. Could have done it sympathetically.
This was a great way to gain at least an introductory understanding to seven Balkan countries in a seductive and memorable way. As with most journalis...moreThis was a great way to gain at least an introductory understanding to seven Balkan countries in a seductive and memorable way. As with most journalistic histories, I had the nagging feeling throughout that creating a juicy story might have jettisoned an objective approach along the way. So, relatively superficial, but that fit with the amount of energy I had for the project. Entertaining throughout. Great for contributing to a cocktail party conversation where you are the only one who has read this much.(less)
Loading...
