BOOKS THREAD

[Herbert Anchovy]

FB, I have Sears' book about 18 yards away. Green leather, standard issue library book. The most unusual acquisition I've made yet. Even has the Dewel Decimal numbers on the spine. My sister had dated a dude who was a maintenance guy (with panache), and he went out on a job to fix someone's plumbing or something and just lifted the book. That was my Christmas gift, along with a 1966 Mickey Mantle card (which I also suspect was pilfered).

Antietam is one of the five worst days in this nation's history. And a topic under constant examination, as it should be. The definitive book I feel is yet to be done.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

However, the book is closed on McClellan.
Dolt.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

I would associate McClellan with this unelected president. Look at McClellan's letters and there is that clear sense of messianism, the call to solve something crucial, save his country and being the only one to do so.

At least the other George finished at the top of his class and was regarded, even momentarily, as a military genius.

 

[zimbabwe]

Cormac McCarthy's new one sounds good.

 

[Birdscribe]

FB, I have Sears' book about 18 yards away. Green leather, standard issue library book. The most unusual acquisition I've made yet. Even has the Dewel Decimal numbers on the spine. My sister had dated a dude who was a maintenance guy (with panache), and he went out on a job to fix someone's plumbing or something and just lifted the book. That was my Christmas gift, along with a 1966 Mickey Mantle card (which I also suspect was pilfered).

Antietam is one of the five worst days in this nation's history. And a topic under constant examination, as it should be. The definitive book I feel is yet to be done.

Great story, LJB. I have a similar story with how I got my lob wedge. Dad was at a driving range one day and picked up this Tommy Armour 60-degree wedge by mistake. Now, it's in my bag.

Haven't read Sears' tome on Antietam, but if it's like his book on Gettysburg, it'll be lights-out.

 

[Gold]

I would associate McClellan with this unelected president. Look at McClellan's letters and there is that clear sense of messianism, the call to solve something crucial, save his country and being the only one to do so.

At least the other George finished at the top of his class and was regarded, even momentarily, as a military genius.

McClellan has gotten a bum rap from history. Yes, the man had an ego. His main talent was as an engineer and we was outstanding. He took over after some of the early battles and tried to build the Union Army up. He had to face a lot more experienced generals on the other side.

Robert E. Lee said McClellan was the best Union general he faced. McClellan had his army secure Washington, DC. He is faulted for being overly cautious, but had he attacked more aggressively in 1862 and 1863 there might higher Union deaths and that might have turned opinion more against the war in North. In retrospect, Grant and Sherman making all-out attacks with more deaths proved to be successful as a war of attrition, but could McClellan have seen that in 1863. And from what I could read, had Grant not been successful in 1864 McClellan would likely have been elected as president.

 

[Birdscribe]

I would associate McClellan with this unelected president. Look at McClellan's letters and there is that clear sense of messianism, the call to solve something crucial, save his country and being the only one to do so.

At least the other George finished at the top of his class and was regarded, even momentarily, as a military genius.

McClellan has gotten a bum rap from history. Yes, the man had an ego. His main talent was as an engineer and we was outstanding. He took over after some of the early battles and tried to build the Union Army up. He had to face a lot more experienced generals on the other side.

Robert E. Lee said McClellan was the best Union general he faced. McClellan had his army secure Washington, DC. He is faulted for being overly cautious, but had he attacked more aggressively in 1862 and 1863 there might higher Union deaths and that might have turned opinion more against the war in North. In retrospect, Grant and Sherman making all-out attacks with more deaths proved to be successful as a war of attrition, but could McClellan have seen that in 1863. And from what I could read, had Grant not been successful in 1864 McClellan would likely have been elected as president.

Gold:

You and I agree on 96.8% of the posts on this board, but you're wrong here. McClellan was a top-notch engineer (graduated second in his West Point Class of 1846) and as an administrator charged with building up the Union Army from scratch, he did an admirable job given the burdens inherent with such a task.

As a field general, he was an unmitigated disaster, which explains Lee's quote. The rap McClellan gets for his field leadership is wholly justified.

Had he attacked more aggressively (and more intelligently) in 1862-63 -- highlighted by his abject failure to crush Lee at and immediately after Antietam -- there probably wouldn't have BEEN a need for Grant to bleed his army dry in the spring and summer of 1864, nor for Sherman to burn down Atlanta and pillage his way to the sea.

By the way, that was the act that got Lincoln re-elected in the Election of 1864.

 

[Gold]

I'll concede that McClellan wasn't the greatest field general, but he was better than some of the other Union generals, like Burnside and some of the political hacks running things early in the war.

From the book I read about McClellan (can't remember the title - it was at least 15 years ago), he either didn't have the intelligence or didn't believe the intelligence of the numerical superiority he had. Also, facing Lee was like when Southern California dealing with Vince Young in the Rose Bowl. It affects your decision making.

So maybe we are down to 95.6 percent agreement.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I'll concede that McClellan wasn't the greatest field general, but he was better than some of the other Union generals, like Burnside and some of the political hacks running things early in the war.

From the book I read about McClellan (can't remember the title - it was at least 15 years ago), he either didn't have the intelligence or didn't believe the intelligence of the numerical superiority he had. Also, facing Lee was like when Southern California dealing with Vince Young in the Rose Bowl. It affects your decision making.

So maybe we are down to 95.6 percent agreement.

If you ignore the fact that it was McClellan, bungling the third chance he had to win the war in the same afternoon, who hung Burnside out to dry at the bridge during the final major action at Antietam....

 

[Drock]

Cormac McCarthy's new one sounds good.

I'm hoping so. He's my favorite living writer. I'll get to it as soon as I finish The Great Deluge about Katrina.

 

[Duane Postum]

Anyone have any recommendations on which George Pelecanos novel to jump into first? As I watch The Wire I'm getting geekedon reading his stuff (and Richard Price, too). I've been away from crime novels too long ...

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

McClellan had great talent for administration, but not generalship. He reorganized and streamlined the army, he was just incapable of moving or inspiring it. He was exactly the kind of wuss general Lincoln increasingly became exasperated with, a paper tiger who complained about not having enough men or supplies instead of being a fighter.

 

[Del_B_Vista]

I'd never actually read M*A*S*H until I grabbed it off the discount table at B&N a couple days ago. Quick read, pretty good stuff. The movie was pretty true to the book, although it left out the most sacreligious storyline. Probably understandable in 1970.

 

[hachat11]

Have been waiting all summer for Scott Smith's "The Ruins". Just got it today!!

Just finished that a few days ago. That was an awesome read. I kept giving my plants weird looks after I finished, plus my wife and I visited some Mayan ruins on our honeymoon.
Just picked up his first book "A Simple Plan" today.

Also picked up the new Michael Lewis and Michael Connelly books. Looking forward to reading those.

 

[friend of the friendless]

Sirs, Madames,

The Road ... Cormac MC's latest ... is unbelievably good. Could not put it down.

YHS, etc

 

[JR]

Just finished "Heat" by Bill Buford. If you think owning your own restaurant would be "fun", read this.

Great book by a New Yorker writer and author of "Among the Thugs" about English soccer hooligans.

 

[JR]

Man Booker Prize winner is "The Inheritance of Loss" by Kiran Desai, daughter of novelist Anita Desai.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1160475127201&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

The Booker Prize is the literary equivalent in England of the Kentucky Derby. Lots of money tossed around betting on the winner.

 

[Double Down]

The credibility of the Man Booker Prize took a serious hit for me two years ago when Vernon God Little was named the winner. The book was moronic, and more of a political statement (America sucks!) by an English writer than it was good writing.

 

[zimbabwe]

Sirs, Madames,

The Road ... Cormac MC's latest ... is unbelievably good. Could not put it down.

YHS, etc

Staggeringly good. Sat at Starbucks and read the whole thing.

I'm a loser.

Has the feel of a "farewell" novel. McCarthy's bleakest yet most tender work ever. Ridiculously good.

 

[friend of the friendless]

Mr Babwe,

You're a loser? What about C McC? The Road not even a finalist for the National Book Awards! Announced yesterday:

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=114&pid=0&sid=918845&page=2

For freakin' shame. It is the end of the world.

YHS, etc