Comments | lookingland: some reading and a little lesson in the history of psychology ~

lookingland

some reading and a little lesson in the history of psychology ~

Sep 25, 2007 09:30

for the 50bookchallenge: no. 57 ~ A Soldier's Heart by gary paulsen. coupled with an article from the Journal of Urology (don't ask, i work in a library, i just come across things) about Joshua Chamberlain's pelvic wound, it was a thoroughly demoralizing evening of reading last night. paulsen's book is, hands down, the most depressing Civil War story i have ever ( Read more... )

research, reading, civil war fiction

Comments 8

(The comment has been removed)

lookingland September 26 2007, 01:54:34 UTC

well it's certainly a quick read ~ i don't think it's even 100 pages.

: D

(The comment has been removed)

lookingland September 27 2007, 00:17:51 UTC

i figgered the "reb" thing was sort of from the main character's pov, but i agree about the whole trading coffee and tobacco (trot out that tired old tale, why don't he? booooring).

i thought there were a lot of weak points in the book overall ~ the strengths were all in just the history and the researched particulars (which aren't really attributable to paulsen).

: o p

I read this... anonymous September 26 2007, 04:41:53 UTC

on the airplane going to Chicago for my first conference with Loyola.

I've always heard that Gettysburg was the bloodiest BATTLE (over several days) and Antietam the bloodiest single day in the war. Is that incorrect then?

moo, who is certain of nothing and ready to be set straight ;-)

Re: I read this... lookingland September 26 2007, 12:38:13 UTC

it's the "killing more men in two hours than all the previous wars put together" that i'm quibbling with. yes, Gettysburg was a bigger bloodbath over its three-day spread, but Antietam was the two hour bloodbath that caused more casualties than all the previous wars put together.

says the total geek.

i'm not a stats freak, but some Civil War stuff sticks in your head and stays there ~ and for me this is one of those things. hahahahahaha ~

you din't say what you thought of the book!

: D

Re: I read this... anonymous September 26 2007, 16:48:52 UTC

Well, yeah. I get that (about Antietam and Gettysburg) but I see how confusion arises about what people mean. I guess whether the statement is true or not would depend on what 2 hourses (ha) are being compared...that kind of statistic always seems suspect to me anyway--as if someone was standing counting corpes with a stop watch in hand. ffft.

About the book: I thought the story was devastatingly awful--as it should be. I knew it was based on a real guy at the get-go.

I'm not a huge Paulsen fan style-wise, but it bothered me less here probably because the book is so short.

moo (again)

Re: I read this... lookingland September 26 2007, 17:25:26 UTC

well there can only be one "bloodiest day" in America since the body count isn't going to be equal (speculation or no). and no, no one was standing there with a ticker, but casualty-wise, given what we have to go on, that bloodiest "day" is indisputably September 17th. Gettysburg had three days to pile up bodies (about 46 thousand of them). Antietam only had those few hours (to pile up about 24 thousand casualties). So it's not so much which two hours are being compared since no two hours at Gettysburg piled up as many bodies as at Antietam.

and at some point you just think about the sheer volume we're talking here and it's all so vile that the point seems moot ~ dead is dead, and horrendously so.

not a paulsen fan either, so it all prolly neither here nor there anyway ~ hahahahahaha.

: D

Thread 6