The Wars of America--By Robert Leckie

[Pielorinho]

Shark, of course he can choose not to have a bibliography. But given the number of books in the world, I'm not likely to read 1,200 pages of a book whose first fact I research turns out to be incorrect.

The point of having a bibliography is precisely this, so that we can check up on the author's claims. Frankly, his argument that the space limitations in a 1,200 page book prevented him from having a bibliography sounds sloppy at best, and disingenuous at worst. It prevents people from having a serious discussion of his interpretation of historical fact: when confronted with seeming inaccuracies, we're left to imagine how he came up with his "facts."

Yes, he may get the bulk of the facts straight. But if I'm gonna read a 1,200 page book, that's not good enough. I want the book to be carefully and transparently researched.

(Incidentally, as a matter of personal taste, I find his writing style as represented in the snippets here to be laughably purple, simplistic, and pulpy. I've read history books in a similar style before, and they filled me with disgust and loathing. But were that my only problem with the book, I woulda kept silent: it's the inaccuracies, not the writing, that I find really objectionable).

If I read the book, it'll be for ideas on how to represent mythically bloodthirsty savages in a fantasy world. It won't be for real-world history.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Semper Veritas? What branch have you served in Daniel?

Hmm...I confess, Shark, that that was an unworthily snarky comment on my part, and I apologize. I meant to suggest that perhaps your laudable loyalty toward the marines was influencing your evaluation of the book, and to suggest that evaluating it on its facts might lead to a different conclusion.

But I don't think it came out right. Sorry.

Daniel

 

[mmadsen]

However, on your claim that a book without a bibliography is a scholarly work - I must disagree.

I must have missed that part of SHARK's post. His points seem to be: (1) references are important in academia but not necessarily in popular histories, (2) Mr. Leckie includes references in his other, shorter works, (3) Mr. Leckie's popular works agree with other, more scholarly -- and thus presumably "accurate" -- works, and (4) Mr. Leckie's writing doesn't put you to sleep.

 

[mmadsen]

But given the number of books in the world, I'm not likely to read 1,200 pages of a book whose first fact I research turns out to be incorrect.

The infantry etymology left a bad taste in my mouth too, but I honestly believe it's uncharacteristic of the book as a whole. As SHARK has pointed out, his other texts list references and haven't contradicted scholarly works on the same subject.

Frankly, his argument that the space limitations in a 1,200 page book prevented him from having a bibliography sounds sloppy at best, and disingenuous at worst.

As it stands now, pages 1199 through 1228 are notes, pages 1229 through 1236 are recommended reading, and 1237 through 1281 are an index. The book isn't an unreferenced novelization; he just doesn't footnote every statement, as in an academic work. Realistically, that could make the book unwieldly, particularly for a popular audience.

Incidentally, as a matter of personal taste, I find his writing style as represented in the snippets here to be laughably purple, simplistic, and pulpy.

Perhaps I'm lower-brow than I realized, but I'm enjoying the lurid text immensely -- and I'll actually read this 1,200-page history book effortlessly.

 

[mmadsen]

Here's where Leckie gets around to rangers:

It consisted of 210 men, of whom 96 were Indians. The remainder were Frenchmen,and most of these were coureurs de bois, that is "runners of the woods," or bushrangers, a hardy breed of Canadian to whom the forest was home. Like their English counterparts, the American rangers, they were romantic figures of a vanished era. Equally at ease in buckskin or in homespun, dreaming beside the campfire or drunk inside the gambling hall, they could stalk wild beasts as skillfully as any savage -- and they could also take a neat scalp.

Not exactly Aragorn, but still a great image.

 

[Pielorinho]

Here's where Leckie gets around to rangers:

Equally at ease in buckskin or in homespun, dreaming beside the campfire or drunk inside the gambling hall, they could stalk wild beasts as skillfully as any savage -- and they could also take a neat scalp.

Again, poor editing -- he surely meant to say "any OTHER savage." Or is "savage," in Leckie's parlance, a derogatory term for American Indians, and thereby not applicable to whitefolk?

Again, the prose sounds sloppy at best.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

coureurs de bois, that is "runners of the woods," [/B]

As to this, does anyone here speak French fluently? My high school French, backed up by Babelfish, translates "runners of the woods" as coureurs du bois. I'm not sure whether "bois" can idiomatically appear without an article, though.

Daniel

 

[mmadsen]

Or is "savage," in Leckie's parlance, a derogatory term for American Indians, and thereby not applicable to whitefolk?

The primary definition of "savage" is "a person belonging to a primitive society". If you're so postmodern that using "savage" for American Indians and not American colonists bothers you, you will not enjoy this book. At all.

 

[HeavyG]

As to this, does anyone here speak French fluently? My high school French, backed up by Babelfish, translates "runners of the woods" as coureurs du bois. I'm not sure whether "bois" can idiomatically appear without an article, though.

Daniel

It's coureur des bois.

coureurs du bois = runner of the wood, singular

 

[mmadsen]

As to this, does anyone here speak French fluently? My high school French, backed up by Babelfish, translates "runners of the woods" as coureurs du bois. I'm not sure whether "bois" can idiomatically appear without an article, though.

I was under the impression that you would only use an article if you were referring to specific woods, e.g. Les Coureurs des Bois de l'Estrie, not to rangers in general. Coureurs de bois is an established term. Here's one encyclopedia entry on-line: http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/coureurs.html