Donna’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
Please Donna, it's literature not a history book.
The Civil War isn't even the major theme of the book. It's a setting , a plot device that creates obstacles for two people to overcome. Their's is just one of many stories (although in this case fictional). My grandfather tells me stories about World War 2 and how it affected him and my grandmother. Those stories are no less powerful because they don't have tales of the Jewish persecution.
Mountain folk weren't slave holders. That's why many of these mountain people joined the Union Army. So . . why would the author place slaves amongst hill folks?
The setting changes significantly, and there were lots of slaves in Virginia. It's historical fiction that alters the setting to where there are no slaves or former slaves anywhere in Virginia except for the one with (omg) the watermelon.
It's an odyssey Donna. It's one man's struggle to escape the insanity of war. It could have taken place during any war. That's the point. It's not about slavery or even about the Civil War.
Dr. Michael wrote: "It's an odyssey Donna. It's one man's struggle to escape the insanity of war. It could have taken place during any war. That's the point. It's not about slavery or even about the Civil War."
Could've fooled me.
Well, I guess Charles Frazier did fool you. Don't know how you could have missed that. We folks who have defended this book should stop before you label us racists. I fear you may be caught up in white liberal guilt.
For a good history of mountain folk & the Civil War, I would recommend Bushwhackers! The Mountains written by William Trotter, born in Charlotte, NC in 1943. I read Trotter's history because of Frazier's acknowledgement of his indebtedness to Trotter.
I think we are wasting our time Loraine. Donna doesn't get it and nothing we say is going to change the way she has interpreted Frazier's book. Pity.
Inman didn't walk out of the hospital because of a notion about Emancipation. He was tired of the war and he opted out.As a historian you ought to know that the Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery, although that was part of the reason. I believe it was because of Lincoln's reaction to states rights to secede. I am tired of people projecting their politics onto a book and deciding a book is wrong. Frazier wrote about one particular subject and deciding it wasn't focused on your particular part you deem it incomplete. Look no farther than his choice of Inman's gun - the LeMat - a gun designed by a French doctor as a way to end wars by making it so deadly with his invention. Weird notion- to end wars by inventing a weapon [think atomic bomb].
I find it interesting that the people attacking Donna for her "opinion" accuse her of being political. Of course, their own political presuppositions are readily apparent :) In the meantime, this contretemps has dragged us kicking and screaming away from further discussion about the book...
Greg wrote: "I believe you meant "Donna."" Yes, thanks, I have corrected my error.
I will bet you are incorrect regarding my political presuppositions. But I digress. This is an open discussion on the merits of Frazier's book. If one is to have an opinion of a book one must back up that opinion with a valid argument. No?
Not really: Opinion: "A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
Yeah, well who's opinion is that? Thought I'd add a little humor.
I guess I set that off with the phrase "projecting their politics" - I might have better expressed myself by saying that any discussion of the book using "politcospeak" or "diversityspeak" just loses me.
"White liberal guilt", not so much. I am not a liberal, I am a Marxist. I am also the mother of an African-American man, so I don't dismiss people who don't look like me, and take umbrage when an obvious error is made.
A Marxist! Ahh, an endangered species. Now I understand. Do you find it strange that we have so many books in common and common ratings of those books? However, I was a bit surprised you gave Johnny Got His Gun only 2 stars. Sorry, I lost all interest in Marx in my 20s. I've since subscribed to the Church Of Cynicism.
Ad, Donna, you had to throw the word "obvious" in there and blow your objectivity and credibility. There was no "error" and it was "obvious," apparently, only to you. All that good information out there at your disposal and you're still believing in a system that's been shown to oppress more people than it "liberates." So sad.
First of all, no historian is objective. Those who buy into the mainstream notion of bourgeois democracy are in the majority, & therefore some of them think that means they are objective. Everyone has a point of view; I am honest enough to admit mine.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I think reading Cold Mountain can be done on a variety of levels. I rarely read romances for their own sake, & I love historical fiction, but only when it is accurate. I did not choose to read Cold Mountain; it was assigned (ahem) for a class called "literature and history", which I would've thought would be right up my alley. Imagine my surprise...if you read history (non-fiction) by credible (since I apparently am not, degrees and teaching experience or no) Black historians, you will find a different historical perspective than Frazier provides. A whole lot of Caucasians manage not to see the Black folks around them, and it is one more way of disenfranchising them. I've been ignoring the comments on this thread for awhile, but this is worth pointing out. If all you want is a romance and you don't care a lick about history, fine. Don't worry [don't think] and be happy. If you need some reality in with your Civil War fiction, best look somewhere else.
In parting, I wonder if it is any coincidence that this discussion is by and large between a bunch of White folks?
...and there you go. If you feel the need for any important last words, this is your moment, and you can put the final,"credible"-if-somewhat-presumptuous-and-self-important paragraph(s) down below mine. I'm moving on.
Stick a fork in me, cause I'm done...at least with the discussion regarding this book.
By and large it's also mostly a discussion between non-marxists. I guess we just don't enjoy being in a minority.
But Donna you are still missing thepoint. It isn't about the Civil War. I wouldn't even label it historic fiction. It's a struggle of one man against the insanity of war and the perils of those he left behind. It could have been any war in the history of mankind. It's an odessey not a history book. I'm quite surprised you've enjoyed Jeff Shaara's books taking place during WWII because they are very unrealistic and yet you like them. Seems as though you are the one being "somewhat presumptuous and self important. Take this book for what it is and not what it ain't. It does not matter what color Inman is or which war he is running from. It's an anti war book. Do you feel All Quiet On The Western front is not a great literary work because it is about a German soldier and , after all, they were the bad guys? And please don't play the race card with me. Because I'm a white Irish guy has nothing to do with the discussion of this book. My wife and son are Jewish and I'm not pissed there are no Jews in Cold Mountain. Hell, there are no concentration camps in Shaara's books.
Donna, given your need for historical accuracy and proper representation of races, I find it odd that you rated "Last of The Mohicans" as higly as you did. Cooper's novel is rife with historical mistakes. His portrayal of some Native Americans as "blood thirsty savages" and others having super-natural abilities to hunt and track as inherent traits of all Native Americans is a far worse "crime" than the omissions made by Frazier. It makes me wonder if its not the the general dismissal of people and errors that you take umbrage with but the fact that this time it happened to a group of people you feel personally connected with. Its seems a rather unfair method of critizing literature.
Good point. I read it a very long time ago for a professor who expected us to lavish praise on it. Have reviewed it and agree with you there; changing my rating. Did not know this was going to turn into a discussion of me, rather than a discussion of the book, but the criticism is a valid one, and I am glad you pointed it out.
I wouldn't be so quick to downgrade Cooper, either. For example, when I read Huckleberry Finn now, it's tough to read some of the racial references, but I have to conclude that it's still a masterpiece, even though it has some politically incorrect references. (as does Cooper) My current "agenda" is completely left out of determining the merits of a work of literature and when I endorse something I read on Goodreads, it's because I let the work stand alone. In other words, I don't review it "in light of any biases or beliefs I have" - I review it as a result of how I appreciate the author's degree of mastering the craft of writing. Ok, so I also say it's a good read and I enjoyed it, too.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Míceál
(new)
Apr 07, 2013 03:06PM
Please Donna, it's literature not a history book.
reply
|
flag
The Civil War isn't even the major theme of the book. It's a setting , a plot device that creates obstacles for two people to overcome. Their's is just one of many stories (although in this case fictional). My grandfather tells me stories about World War 2 and how it affected him and my grandmother. Those stories are no less powerful because they don't have tales of the Jewish persecution.
Mountain folk weren't slave holders. That's why many of these mountain people joined the Union Army. So . . why would the author place slaves amongst hill folks?
The setting changes significantly, and there were lots of slaves in Virginia. It's historical fiction that alters the setting to where there are no slaves or former slaves anywhere in Virginia except for the one with (omg) the watermelon.
It's an odyssey Donna. It's one man's struggle to escape the insanity of war. It could have taken place during any war. That's the point. It's not about slavery or even about the Civil War.
Dr. Michael wrote: "It's an odyssey Donna. It's one man's struggle to escape the insanity of war. It could have taken place during any war. That's the point. It's not about slavery or even about the Civil War."Could've fooled me.
Well, I guess Charles Frazier did fool you. Don't know how you could have missed that. We folks who have defended this book should stop before you label us racists. I fear you may be caught up in white liberal guilt.
For a good history of mountain folk & the Civil War, I would recommend Bushwhackers! The Mountains written by William Trotter, born in Charlotte, NC in 1943. I read Trotter's history because of Frazier's acknowledgement of his indebtedness to Trotter.
I think we are wasting our time Loraine. Donna doesn't get it and nothing we say is going to change the way she has interpreted Frazier's book. Pity.
Inman didn't walk out of the hospital because of a notion about Emancipation. He was tired of the war and he opted out.As a historian you ought to know that the Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery, although that was part of the reason. I believe it was because of Lincoln's reaction to states rights to secede. I am tired of people projecting their politics onto a book and deciding a book is wrong. Frazier wrote about one particular subject and deciding it wasn't focused on your particular part you deem it incomplete. Look no farther than his choice of Inman's gun - the LeMat - a gun designed by a French doctor as a way to end wars by making it so deadly with his invention. Weird notion- to end wars by inventing a weapon [think atomic bomb].
I find it interesting that the people attacking Donna for her "opinion" accuse her of being political. Of course, their own political presuppositions are readily apparent :) In the meantime, this contretemps has dragged us kicking and screaming away from further discussion about the book...
Greg wrote: "I believe you meant "Donna."" Yes, thanks, I have corrected my error.
I will bet you are incorrect regarding my political presuppositions. But I digress. This is an open discussion on the merits of Frazier's book. If one is to have an opinion of a book one must back up that opinion with a valid argument. No?
Not really: Opinion: "A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
Yeah, well who's opinion is that? Thought I'd add a little humor.
I guess I set that off with the phrase "projecting their politics" - I might have better expressed myself by saying that any discussion of the book using "politcospeak" or "diversityspeak" just loses me.
"White liberal guilt", not so much. I am not a liberal, I am a Marxist. I am also the mother of an African-American man, so I don't dismiss people who don't look like me, and take umbrage when an obvious error is made.
A Marxist! Ahh, an endangered species. Now I understand. Do you find it strange that we have so many books in common and common ratings of those books? However, I was a bit surprised you gave Johnny Got His Gun only 2 stars. Sorry, I lost all interest in Marx in my 20s. I've since subscribed to the Church Of Cynicism.
Ad, Donna, you had to throw the word "obvious" in there and blow your objectivity and credibility. There was no "error" and it was "obvious," apparently, only to you. All that good information out there at your disposal and you're still believing in a system that's been shown to oppress more people than it "liberates." So sad.
First of all, no historian is objective. Those who buy into the mainstream notion of bourgeois democracy are in the majority, & therefore some of them think that means they are objective. Everyone has a point of view; I am honest enough to admit mine.Getting back to the topic at hand, I think reading Cold Mountain can be done on a variety of levels. I rarely read romances for their own sake, & I love historical fiction, but only when it is accurate. I did not choose to read Cold Mountain; it was assigned (ahem) for a class called "literature and history", which I would've thought would be right up my alley. Imagine my surprise...if you read history (non-fiction) by credible (since I apparently am not, degrees and teaching experience or no) Black historians, you will find a different historical perspective than Frazier provides. A whole lot of Caucasians manage not to see the Black folks around them, and it is one more way of disenfranchising them. I've been ignoring the comments on this thread for awhile, but this is worth pointing out. If all you want is a romance and you don't care a lick about history, fine. Don't worry [don't think] and be happy. If you need some reality in with your Civil War fiction, best look somewhere else.
In parting, I wonder if it is any coincidence that this discussion is by and large between a bunch of White folks?
...and there you go. If you feel the need for any important last words, this is your moment, and you can put the final,"credible"-if-somewhat-presumptuous-and-self-important paragraph(s) down below mine. I'm moving on.
Stick a fork in me, cause I'm done...at least with the discussion regarding this book.
By and large it's also mostly a discussion between non-marxists. I guess we just don't enjoy being in a minority.
But Donna you are still missing thepoint. It isn't about the Civil War. I wouldn't even label it historic fiction. It's a struggle of one man against the insanity of war and the perils of those he left behind. It could have been any war in the history of mankind. It's an odessey not a history book. I'm quite surprised you've enjoyed Jeff Shaara's books taking place during WWII because they are very unrealistic and yet you like them. Seems as though you are the one being "somewhat presumptuous and self important. Take this book for what it is and not what it ain't. It does not matter what color Inman is or which war he is running from. It's an anti war book. Do you feel All Quiet On The Western front is not a great literary work because it is about a German soldier and , after all, they were the bad guys? And please don't play the race card with me. Because I'm a white Irish guy has nothing to do with the discussion of this book. My wife and son are Jewish and I'm not pissed there are no Jews in Cold Mountain. Hell, there are no concentration camps in Shaara's books.
Donna, given your need for historical accuracy and proper representation of races, I find it odd that you rated "Last of The Mohicans" as higly as you did. Cooper's novel is rife with historical mistakes. His portrayal of some Native Americans as "blood thirsty savages" and others having super-natural abilities to hunt and track as inherent traits of all Native Americans is a far worse "crime" than the omissions made by Frazier. It makes me wonder if its not the the general dismissal of people and errors that you take umbrage with but the fact that this time it happened to a group of people you feel personally connected with. Its seems a rather unfair method of critizing literature.
Good point. I read it a very long time ago for a professor who expected us to lavish praise on it. Have reviewed it and agree with you there; changing my rating. Did not know this was going to turn into a discussion of me, rather than a discussion of the book, but the criticism is a valid one, and I am glad you pointed it out.
I wouldn't be so quick to downgrade Cooper, either. For example, when I read Huckleberry Finn now, it's tough to read some of the racial references, but I have to conclude that it's still a masterpiece, even though it has some politically incorrect references. (as does Cooper) My current "agenda" is completely left out of determining the merits of a work of literature and when I endorse something I read on Goodreads, it's because I let the work stand alone. In other words, I don't review it "in light of any biases or beliefs I have" - I review it as a result of how I appreciate the author's degree of mastering the craft of writing. Ok, so I also say it's a good read and I enjoyed it, too.
