books and books and books and....
catching up for the 50bookchallenge, these being an odd assortment of research ~ i usually don't actually read much biography and certainly not regimental history, but here were some necessary (and curiously interesting) evils:no. 37 ~ Major General John Frederick Hartranft: Citizen Soldier and Pennsylvania Statesment by A. M. Gambone. if his kidneys hadn't killed him too young, Mr. Hanty probably would have written his own autobiography. but gambone does a fine job in his place. one gets the feeling, however, that there's so much more that didn't get included here. i skimmed the stuff about the Molly Macquires because it isn't terribly relevant to what i'm doing (though makes for interesting reading). even though gambone is clearly a fan, i feel the book is tempered well. Hanty had failings and his record of service is a strange mix of success and failure throughout his life. if anything characterizes Hanty, it's that he was a survivor and knew how to keep his temper when it mattered (though clearly had one). it's really too bad that he didn't get to tell his story ~ it would have been very interesting to see what he had to say about so many things.
no. 38 ~ History of a cavalry company: A complete record of Company "A," 4th Penn'a Cavalry, as identified with that regiment, and with the Second Brigade, during the late Civil War by William Hyndman. regimental histories can be pretty dang dry, but hyndman is an interesting writer, though has very little objectivity. it's always good to read a contemporary account though, because you can usually tell what the temper of a regiment was by the ways in which its officers wax on and off about it. hyndman admired Poppet muchly (that's obvious), though curiously says nothing of Poppet's post war defense of the Lincoln conspirators even though he goes on for two pages raising Lincoln to the heavens and denouncing the vile assassins. the omission is glaring.
no. 39 ~ A Brief History of the Fourth Pennsylvania Veteran Cavalry by William E. Doster. Poppet wrote two books, neither of which are really books. his "episodes" book is slightly more structured, with chapters at least, even though the content is all over the map. his regimental history has no narrative whatsoever. instead it's a collection of notes and speeches from the veteran's association related to the regiment. some of it is very curious and interesting. some of it is completely inscrutable. his dedication to the memorial at gettysburg is bizarrely dry (particulary for Poppet!). it's hard to tell what was going on here. my sense of Poppet is that he had no interest in writing books whatsoever, but in both cases caved to other peoples' requests to issue something. the fact that his books explain very little and reveal even less about himself personally is rather interesting.
more later (lots more).
in writing news, i'm slogging away at Eleison still. worked until 11 last night and finally had to go to bed. i can put in a few more hours this morning. Getting it out the door tomorrow is going to be tight tight tight. ughhh.
otherwise, i spent about 40 minutes idling through kauffman's American Brutus and for half a moment considered just letting In Pursuance of Said Conspiracy go. i mean, the point was to outdo swanson's Manhunt (that's where all this started). but really, the story's been told (and fairly well-told, even if i think kauffman comes to some strange conclusions to my way of thinking here and there). when kauffman puts so much weight on the testimony of people like daniel gillette (second-hand testimony, mind you), i wonder about him (and he's a lawyer who ought to know better!). on the other hand, i have to be grateful because he summarizes the more confounding things about the legal practice in 1865, which saves me huge, enormo headaches. still, for all its comprehensiveness, American Brutus emphasizes kauffman's agendas and doesn't explore a lot of other angles (the endless angles!). so while on the one hand it's sort of the crowning glory of texts on the subject, there yet remains details to be told. i don't presume ro fill the gap because he's writing history, i want to write fiction. but all of this does strengthen my case that i need to get away from a linear factual telling and perhaps indulge on the other side of speculation. besides which, i have yet to see anyone tell this story from the point of view of the lawyers (though clampitt wrote a long defense some years after the fact), or from the point of view of Mr. Hanty (who was in the unique position of being there, daily, without any agenda, and having an intimate connection to the accused). so there's still hope.
and: one of the people kauffman implicates in the conspiracy, by the way, is defense attorney fred stone. i'd forgotten about that and can probably use it.
and finally, kauffman's characterization (coming from a lawyer) of Poppet's closing argument as "bizarre and eloquent" seems to catch it dead-on. that's what i thought when i first read it more than 15 years ago, and it's still quite the puzzle today.
okay, must get back to work. picture of the day to come later.
happy tuesday all!
: D
no. 38 ~ History of a cavalry company: A complete record of Company "A," 4th Penn'a Cavalry, as identified with that regiment, and with the Second Brigade, during the late Civil War by William Hyndman. regimental histories can be pretty dang dry, but hyndman is an interesting writer, though has very little objectivity. it's always good to read a contemporary account though, because you can usually tell what the temper of a regiment was by the ways in which its officers wax on and off about it. hyndman admired Poppet muchly (that's obvious), though curiously says nothing of Poppet's post war defense of the Lincoln conspirators even though he goes on for two pages raising Lincoln to the heavens and denouncing the vile assassins. the omission is glaring.
no. 39 ~ A Brief History of the Fourth Pennsylvania Veteran Cavalry by William E. Doster. Poppet wrote two books, neither of which are really books. his "episodes" book is slightly more structured, with chapters at least, even though the content is all over the map. his regimental history has no narrative whatsoever. instead it's a collection of notes and speeches from the veteran's association related to the regiment. some of it is very curious and interesting. some of it is completely inscrutable. his dedication to the memorial at gettysburg is bizarrely dry (particulary for Poppet!). it's hard to tell what was going on here. my sense of Poppet is that he had no interest in writing books whatsoever, but in both cases caved to other peoples' requests to issue something. the fact that his books explain very little and reveal even less about himself personally is rather interesting.
more later (lots more).
in writing news, i'm slogging away at Eleison still. worked until 11 last night and finally had to go to bed. i can put in a few more hours this morning. Getting it out the door tomorrow is going to be tight tight tight. ughhh.
otherwise, i spent about 40 minutes idling through kauffman's American Brutus and for half a moment considered just letting In Pursuance of Said Conspiracy go. i mean, the point was to outdo swanson's Manhunt (that's where all this started). but really, the story's been told (and fairly well-told, even if i think kauffman comes to some strange conclusions to my way of thinking here and there). when kauffman puts so much weight on the testimony of people like daniel gillette (second-hand testimony, mind you), i wonder about him (and he's a lawyer who ought to know better!). on the other hand, i have to be grateful because he summarizes the more confounding things about the legal practice in 1865, which saves me huge, enormo headaches. still, for all its comprehensiveness, American Brutus emphasizes kauffman's agendas and doesn't explore a lot of other angles (the endless angles!). so while on the one hand it's sort of the crowning glory of texts on the subject, there yet remains details to be told. i don't presume ro fill the gap because he's writing history, i want to write fiction. but all of this does strengthen my case that i need to get away from a linear factual telling and perhaps indulge on the other side of speculation. besides which, i have yet to see anyone tell this story from the point of view of the lawyers (though clampitt wrote a long defense some years after the fact), or from the point of view of Mr. Hanty (who was in the unique position of being there, daily, without any agenda, and having an intimate connection to the accused). so there's still hope.
and: one of the people kauffman implicates in the conspiracy, by the way, is defense attorney fred stone. i'd forgotten about that and can probably use it.
and finally, kauffman's characterization (coming from a lawyer) of Poppet's closing argument as "bizarre and eloquent" seems to catch it dead-on. that's what i thought when i first read it more than 15 years ago, and it's still quite the puzzle today.
okay, must get back to work. picture of the day to come later.
happy tuesday all!
: D