The Red Badge of Courage

[Jacob]

I liked this book even though it was hard to understand through out it.

[Emily]

I found it to be quite boring and the whole idea of describing a war was not interesting at all. It is impressive, however, that Crane never fought in the Civil War & was able to depict it so, I've been told, accurately.

[Feliks]

Crane was born after the Civil War ended. He used journalistic techniques --interviewing soldiers who had done the fighting. Its both valid and vivid writing. Any work which might help make up young men's minds about whether they ought to sign up for military service (as still happens today) is pretty useful.

All this is just not likely to be of much interest to contemporary womenfolk, I guess. Just one of the most important books this country has ever produced; but no, its probably not as vital as vampire romances, Miley Cyrus, fad diets, etc. :p

[Emily]

That's a really horrible stereotype you've got there about contemporary "womenfolk." Yes, we all listen to Miley Cyrus and read vampire romances and that's why I didn't enjoy this book.

[Kit]

Loved this book.
The Civil War isn't even the main theme for me, it's all about, youth, fear, fear of cowardice... the walking train of injured folk.

For something so short as well it has had a huge impact on me.
Crane just has a realism, more than that a heightened sense of reality, which is hugely absorbing.
Try the movie if you don't love the book.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043961/

Cheers,
K

[Feliks]

Emily wrote: "That's a really horrible stereotype you've got there about contemporary "womenfolk." Yes, we all listen to Miley Cyrus and read vampire romances and that's why I didn't enjoy this book."

Well. It was deliberately meant to be. Absurdity intended. But what else is there to say in response to someone who writes that 'the idea of describing a war is boring'?

[Emily]

The reason I didn't find this book interesting isn't because there were no vampires in it (not that I read the vampire books anyway), but because it wasn't my type of book. I'm pretty sure there are girls/women who may enjoy this book. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But I know guys who don't like this book so saying that the only reason I don't like this book is because I'm a girl isn't fair.

[Gerd]

Feliks wrote: "But what else is there to say in response to someone who writes that 'the idea of describing a war is boring'?"

In Emily's defense, she said not interesting. Which is a perfectly legal statement, not everybody has to find reading about war interesting - we sure do get enough of it through the news already.
And she sure isn't the only person to find The Red Badge boring (not a sentiment I could share as I find the Civil War to be terribly fascinating, but yeah, Crane's writing isn't everybody's cup of tea).

[Feliks]

Oh okay. So when I paraphrased her remark I nearly infringed on her legal right to her opinion. Uh-oh. Have to watch my word-choice next time. Sorry.

:)

Ehh. I see it this way: sure, we're in a clumsy web-forum environment here; typing our thoughts out into tiny little 'text-input boxes'. Its crude. But I could only take her at her word; she implied that (to her) books exploring the horrors of warfare are ...uninteresting? I think that opinion is worth rebutting. 'The Red Badge of Courage' contains much more than entertainment value. Its an important work in the genre of anti-war fiction. Always timely. Always relevant.

[Gerd]

Ah well, but it is a dry read to a modern audience no less, even though it is of a timeless relevance.

Although, it is much more accessible than Johnny Got His Gun. :)

[Emily]

In my own defense, I don't think it's possible to rebut someone's opinion of anything. That is my opinion and you obviously have yours. I'm not saying this book isn't important. It does explain the Civil War very well and my english teacher has informed me of its importance to our society and all that stuff.
All I'm saying is this book is not for me. Which is something you have the right to say about any book that I've read and you don't like.

[Feliks]

Of course its possible to counter someone else's opinion. Unless you keep your opinions in a vacuum --there, yes you're free to entertain any notion you wish. But expressing an opinion to an audience--submitting it as something which can be adopted by others--is different. The implication is that its something which can be tested, sounded, rung for validity (unless its pure gobbledeygook and not intended to be taken seriously). Where an opinion steps out into common ground, a more expansive viewpoint should always be welcome on the heels of a narrow one.

Yes, you do not have to agree or like what someone else says; but what is up with this constant blowback from people on Goodreads whenever someone makes a comment? At least let the other person speak without reminding them of 'your rights' as if no one should ever chime in at the end of anything we say. Its nothing personal y'know. This is is a 'forum' environment-- not a place for epigrams.

Finally, as for this very over-used phrase, "I have a right to my opinion".. I like to mention Harlan Ellison's response; "No, you have a right to an informed opinion. No one has a right to ignorance."

[Emily]

Your incredibly long comment is still not going to make me think that this book was exciting. And as for the "blowbacks from people on Goodreads," you are doing the same to anything I write. Anyway, this is basically pointless because I have my views and you have your views and that is that.

[Kit]

I maintain it's not really a book about the Civil War at all.
Nor is it a good description of the Civil War, in my opinion.
It describes one skirmish, in one battle, it is something far different to historical fiction.

It's certainly not a dry read to a modern audience, just a stupid audience.

Emily, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Personally I find the Civil War fascinating too.
I have just watched two western movies in a row... 1950s movies.
I completely see that to many people that would be a pretty boring three hours.
I don't love the horses, or the guns, but I am loving the rich story telling and brilliant screenwriting.
Love opinions!

Mmmmm....
Opinions.

Kit

[Feliks]

Gerd wrote: "In Emily's defense, she said not interesting...."

Emily wrote: "I found it to be quite boring and the whole idea of describing a war was not interesting at all."

o_0

Be it so noted: in at least 2-3 occasions in this thread, I did not give the 'blowback' I accused Emily of (and which she later counter-accused me of doing), instead I agreed with the respondents to my comments and tried to ameliorate my stance to accommodate theirs. Just sayin'.

I also maintain that people today are so frantic about the sanctity of 'their own opinion' they fail to see that it pushes discussion/analysis nowhere. The question is, where does your opinion fit in with everyone else's?

This novel--written a hundred years ago--regarded as a classic--how many other people down throughout those decades found it 'boring'? A few? A handful? Some pitiful minority? Then, this can not be assumed as the definitive label for such a work. You rank art by the best reception it has ever received--and by the best audiences--not by the comments of fluff readers in the internet era.

[Gerd]

Feliks wrote: "You rank art by the best reception it has ever received--and by the best audiences--not by the comments of fluff readers in the internet era."

That would a) raise the question who are these best audiences?

And b) pose an invitation to point out that you yourself seem not interested to rank Vampire Romances by the best reception they ever received. :)

[Emily]

Gerd...thank you for bringing up a very true point. If you are basically saying that my opinion is wrong, how can you yourself say that vampire books are not good? People all over the world are absoutely obsessed with those books. I am not one of them, however I do believe that I enjoyed certain books that you would not.
I'm assuming, based on this book, that you and I do not have very similar opinions on books. But that may be simply because, I'm assuming, you are not a 17 year old girl.

[Harold]

Kit wrote: "Loved this book.
The Civil War isn't even the main theme for me, it's all about, youth, fear, fear of cowardice... the walking train of injured folk.

For something so short as well it has had a hu..."

Well said.I agree.

[Carlos]

This is simple, but miltary statement of all countries doesn't like some truths. You can be courageous at one time, but can be weak in another and you can't prevent that. So simple facts are I think the matter of the best books, not these complicate plots.

[Aleksandar]

How did you come to talk about Miley Cyrus and vampires, I wonder.

As someone already said, this is not a book about the Civil War itself. It's true that Crane never fought in the war, and even if he hadn't depicted the war so accurately it wouldn't matter, because at the end of the day, this novel does not center on warfare, but on human nature. Being a naturalist writer, Crane obviously wanted to say that it is completely normal for a healthy human being to be governed by inner impulses such as fear and survival instinct. You either need to be mentally unbalanced or heavily dominated by patriotic feelings (which is more or less the same in my opinion) in order to to rush to your death. The idea was further developed in post-WWI and WWII anti-war works -- Johnny Got His Gun, Catch-22 etc.

[Carlos]

I don't know who are Miley Cyrus nor know any vampire until now, but as it were, I think none of the two fought American Civil War.
I think you're basically right, but military statemente does a terrible psychological pressure over the conscript, so, in miltary service I did compulsorily at times of death of Franco, a difficult time in Spain, simply you can't substract from all orders or you are practically dead. War is another thing.

[Feliks]

Aleksandar wrote: "As someone already said, this is not a book about the Civil War itself. It's true that Crane never fought in the war, and even if..."

I'm not sure whether Michael Shaara ever fought in a war; and probably MacKinlay Kantor also never served in the military either, yet these two men have written the best books we currently recognize about the US Civil War. And they didn't even have the benefit of interviewing participants, as Stephen Crane did.

[Feliks]

Gerd wrote: "That would..
a) raise the question who are these best audiences?..."

Ehm. Why do you worry over that question? Any palate will dull if not kept honed. Has the public maintained the same intellectual capacity from one century to another? Education systems of one culture and timeperiod, are no different from some other culture and some other timeperiod? The scope and breadth of public knowledge doesn't change, at all, from generation to generation--it stays constant, is that what you want to suggest? Obviously, there are variations in capacity, over time, right?

If there hadn't, what would ever have been the motive for so many people to graduate with liberal arts degrees down through the years? Would the discipline even exist, if it couldn't expand people's sensitivity? Why would even a single person ever have taken a music appreciation course, (for example) ..if audience members couldn't ever be improved?

History shows occasions a-plenty, when audiences weren't up to the caliber of something presented them, instances when 'what the artist was communicating', went right over their heads; when it only dawned on them later that they had missed something. Its a truism that many artists and authors achieve their fame only after their deaths; its common for the public to be slow to catch up to a new, innovative vision. I repeat: you wouldn't always want to judge an artist by how he fared in the marketplace. You wouldn't judge someone's talent by the ignoramus appraisal of some thick-skulled lummox randomly shuffling by on the sidewalk outside.

Gerd wrote: "And b) pose an invitation to point out that you yourself seem not interested to rank Vampire Romances by the best reception they ever received. :) ..."

Well. :^D The invitation to mull over the notion that somehow, today's txt-happy, dizzy, e-reading, vampire-addicted readers are an intellectual force to be reckoned with, simply because of their sheer numbers? No, this also doesn't lead us very far. Numbers alone do not tell the tale.

Thanks for the input Gerd--although you did get Emily all stoked up for nothing :D

[Gerd]

Wow, that was a quite a lengthy non-answer. :D

[Carlos]

Having in coubt there's people capable to "read" The Girl with a Dragoon tatto, the answer of Gerd is very short.
I think there are times of zenith and times of decline in countries and civilization. Enormous develpopment of computers and genetics, etc, made of this time a special time.

And I think I'll don't go to see the final of all that. I'm old for that.
Sorry my bad English. I'm a Spaniard

[Jim]

It was the first book that I read that addressed fear of figting in a war battle and Desertion. I found this to be a great book, it could be re-written for many different wars, not just the Civil War.

[Carlos]

As I remember from military people, in Spain at less and I suposse everywhere, these are paradoxical persons: they are capable to face death or deadly fire.
But they get in panic if the sergeant has found a slight dirty uniform, boots, etc. Curious.

Sincerely, Carlos

[[deleted user]]

I read through the comments on this thread. Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but on one side it seems you have somebody who made statements about a book. On the other side you have somebody who questioned those statements. I would call that a discussion, except personal attacks (or what were perceived as personal attacks) were included.

On the one hand, I have also been put off by people who simply dismiss books by saying they were bad or boring. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But simply saying "it is my opinion" when your statements are challenged is not a defense of your statements.

On the other hand, when somebody challenges a comment, they do not have to resort to personal attacks or "rudish" (Is that a word? If not, it should be) counter comments. If people can follow these "ground rules", then we have a discussion. Otherwise it quickly degenerates into something else which is not a discussion, but can be interesting and entertaining to read.

[[deleted user]]

The Red Badge of Courage was probably the first work of historical fiction I ever read. I don't see it as anti-war literature, although it surely shows the horrors of war. I see it as a character-driven novel that follows the exploits of one young man and his struggle to come to terms with himself in the face of war. I think it succeeds as great literature, because it opens up as many questions as it seems to answer.

I like reading about history, and I like taking on novels that are considered "classic", so this novel is of obvious interest to me. I particularly like trying to get into the head of authors that lived in previous centuries. I think the further you go back, the more difficult it becomes. But it can also be very rewarding.

I feel bad for people that are assigned to read this book for school, are told what a great piece of literature it is, then find themselves crawling through a swamp from the first page. But to simply dismiss a book of this caliber based on your reading experience is like calling classical music boring, because it makes you sleepy whenever you listen to it. Some tastes need to be cultivated.

[Carlos]

This is a novel relatively complex. And we readers, as the writers, some os us are unexperienced, but some of us are expert and some, professsional readers (editors, etc).
The level of understanding a novel depends of all that.