Rating: 
Summary: Crazy Horse
Review: A lean and powerful book very well written. Lean because the author wrote only what is actually know about Crazy Horse but places this information in the context of the places and events surrounding him. For the reader who wants to read more about those events and the speculations about Crazy Horse's participation in them as well as his character, a bibliography is included. I am a great fan of McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove" trilogy and am certainly able to discriminate between fiction and the unadorned truth of "Crazy Horse". I recommend this book without reservation.
Rating: 
Summary: Quick and readable
Review: Almost a short novel. Very readable and personal perspective on a great american hero. Personally I liked Win Blevins' "Stone Fox", which was a novalization, much better.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Much to Write About
Review: As I read this book, I couldn't help feeling that Mr. Mc Murtry would have been better off not writing this book. So eloquent about cowboys and the West in his other books, he comes across as stilted, disgruntled, and disconnected in this brief biography. Ultimately, Mr. Mc Murtry sems overwhelmed by having little, undisputed written evidence to work with. Crazy Horse has become a symbol to many, either as a brave warrior, a determined resister facing overwhelming odds, or as an authentic Native American hero. Mr. Mc Murtry deplores the myth-making in what has been written about Crazy Horse by other biographers. On the other hand, Mr. Mc Murtry does not approach the familiar historian's problem of overcoming bias with any particular rigor or insight. In fact, it seemed to me like he may not be familiar enough with the works of historians who have addressed this problem. So, the book often laments and displays the problems of writing history with few documented facts, but doesn't describe or handle the problem very smoothly. In addition, by wanting to separate himself from the myth of Crazy Horse, Mr. Mc Murtry potentially leaves the reader who is new to the subject wondering why anyone cares about Crazy Horse. Mr. Mc Murtry writes this book as though every reader has already read every other major reference about Crazy Horse. While I have had the benefit of reading many of those sources, I must say that such an approach is highly unusual and less than helpful. What jolted me the most about the book was the use of complex language to describe a man who lived a simple life. If anyone needed Hemingway as a biographer, it was Crazy Horse. Often, those who use complex language do so out of a sense of discomfort with their subject matter. Could that have been the case with Mr. Mc Murtry. Unless you have a compelling need to shrink Crazy Horse's legend down to size in your mind, I suggest you skip this book. But don't skip Mr. Mc Murtry. He is one of our very finest writers about the cowboys and the settling of the West. If you do read this book, think about what you would like to have known about Crazy Horse that is not portrayed here, but could have been discussed. For example, from a psychological point of view what does it mean for a son not to follow his father's religious beliefs? What kind of childhood events often cause this to occur in Native American cultures? What might have happened to Crazy Horse, based on clues in other aspects of his behavior? Listen for the dogs that don't bark, as well as those that do in writing history!
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining and very readable
Review: As you should expect from a 140-page book, this is by no means a comprehensive biography. It is, however, interesting and entertaining. I went into this book knowing next to nothing about Crazy Horse, and I feel like I came out with a passable idea of where he fits into American history.
The author states up front that he isn't going to speculate into areas of Crazy Horse's life where there are no substantial facts. Consequently, much of the book is more of a history of the conflict between the Sioux and the U.S. military than a biography of Crazy Horse. But I do think the author does a good job of giving one a feel for Crazy Horse's place in said conflict.
Rating: 
Summary: It was titled "Don't bother'
Review: Can you tell me why my review of this book, submitted over a month ago, has not appeared? Thank you.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing New in McMurtry's Crazy Horse
Review: Cliff Notes! That's what first popped into my head when I finished the last page of McMurty's Crazy Horse. In his zeal to dispense with speculation, theory and assumption -- to demystify the life of Crazy Horse -- McMurtry essentially gutted it and leaves us only with the bare bones of cold, dead facts. He writes of the Lakota people's hero almost as dispassionately as one might write for a seed catalog. I agree with Stephan Oates, a well known biographer of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., that a biographer's task is to "conjure life from leavings" and "to elicit from cold fact the warmth of a life as it was lived". In that regard a biographer is an "artist on oath" and here McMurtry fails miserably as he is not able to flesh out a comprehensive "canvas" of the emotional, spiritual and intellectual make-up of Crazy Horse, nor does he reveal him to us within the full context of the history, ethos and social complex of Lakota culture. McMurtry's book is incomplete as biography and is much more a critique or commentary on existing historical writings concerning the life of Crazy Horse. At the start of his book McMurtry attempts to dupe us into believing that he is going to take the "high road" by being objective, sticking to the facts, avoiding any speculation or imbuing of unsubstantiated words, thoughts and feelings into his portrayal of Crazy Horses's life. As McMurtry himself professes, neither he nor anyone else has "an accurate grip on the deeds, much less the soul, of the Sioux warrior we call Crazy Horse". Unfortunately, he doesn't deliver very well on this front either as McMurtry has scattered throughout the narrative his own speculations and insights into how Crazy Horse may have felt in certain situations or what motivated him to react the way he did to circumstances we know he encountered in his life. It's interesting to note that ofttimes where McMurtry chooses to insert insights into the character of this man beyond the cold facts, it usually does not place him in a very heroic light. For example, McMurtry doesn't hesitate to speculate on Crazy Horse's state of mind during the weeks following his surrender when he suggests that he was "confused, stressed, off-balance, and finally, a desparate man". McMurtry further offers that "from his (Crazy Horse) personal point of view probably the best thing that came out of this move (surrender) was that Dr. Valentine McGillycuddy offered to treat Black Shawl, his wife, for her tuberculosis..."; suggesting here that Crazy Horse was preoccupied only with his own personal interests and not those of his community during this time of crisis. Another fanciful tale I found rather disturbing, even though McMurtry tried cover himself by adroitly declaring it speculation once the "canvas was fully painted", was his suggestion that Crazy Horse opted for death rather than a life of imprisonment because he was not as "tough a nut as Sitting Bull or Geronimo", both of whom endured the white man's confinement. What I found disturbing is why he bothered to speculate at all on this notion unless he was trying subtly to implant in the reader's mind that Crazy Horse's resistance up to the end was merely a form of suicide or cowardly escape from the troubles that lay ahead. Where he does attempt to trek along the "high road" of empiricism, McMurtry falls into a far more pernicious trap, which is to deny the character or soul of Crazy Horse its due in an extremist's effort to stick to the hard facts. One such example in the book is McMurtry's treatment of the circumstances surrounding Crazy Horse's death. Almost all accounts of Crazy Horse's death reflect that after he was bayoneted by a sentry at Fort Robinson while struggling to resist being placed in the guardhouse, he was carried off to the Adjutant General's office. Upon arrival, Crazy Horse refused a cot and was placed on the floor to die. Instead of concluding that the refusal of the cot was evidence that Crazy Horse was his own man to the end, McMurtry displays his extremism of objectivity, while at the same time his complete lack of empathy for his subject, by suggesting that such a conclusion is just the speculations of others who have written about the account. Come On! What are the alternative interpretations.....that Crazy Horse was merely a stubborn, uncooperative SOB to the bitter end for no other reason than the mere sake of it, or that he simply preferred the comfort of the hard floor to the cot...??? To conclude from what we know about his death at Fort Robinson that Crazy Horse was his own man to the end is a conclusion about his character that is consistent with the other facts of his life. The fact that he refused to allow his picture to be taken by white men, the fact that he refused to embrace the white man's culture during the course of his life, the fact that he refused to go to Washington with other chiefs to commiserate with the "great white father", the fact that he refused to engage in negotiations or compromises with Indian agents or generals when it came to Lakota land or the Lakota way of life cannot be ignored or dismissed. When the facts surrounding his refusal to accept the cot are viewed in this context, it enables us to resurrect from the dead certain apsects of his character and soul. There really isn't anything new I can find of substance in McMurtry's biography of Crazy Horse, and in my opinion, it serves best as cliff notes with personal commentary (by a cynical, old curmudgeon I might add) on other works that have come before. The one caution I have for prospective readers is my sense of an underlying bias behind his treatment of Crazy Horse as an ex post facto symbol of Sioux freedom, Sioux courage and Sioux dignity and not as a man who lived a heroic life. I suspect that it is McMurtry's belief that this symbol was created as the stuff of legends to ease the pain of both the survivors of a broken people and those who broke them. When it comes right down to it, for McMurtry, there is no real hero behind the legend at all. If you are interested in a biography of Crazy Horse that will bring his character to life in the full context of the Sioux culture, I recommend Mari Sandoz's Crazy Horse, The Strange Man of the Oglalas.
Rating:
Summary: A fine, brief look at the life of an enigmatic legend
Review: Crazy Horse died at Ft Robinson on September 6, 1877, that much is certain. Almost everything else is up for grabs. As a result, your view of this and every other treatment of Crazy Horse's life depends on how closely it matches your preconceptions. This book succeeds on its own terms. It's a concise, fairly well-grounded biography. It avoids much of the speculation and license of others who have walked this road before. If what you want is to get some idea of, in George Hyde's words, "What was it all about?" this book is worth a couple hours of your time.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Beginning Book About Crazy Horse, the Man
Review: Crazy Horse has been puzzled over by genertions of historians. Larry McMurtry gives a sensitive portrait of the great Sioux warrior who became a reluctant leader at the battle of the Little Big Horn. It is a short biography with a wonderful story teller's touch! It's worth the read.
Evelyn Horan - teacher/counselor/author
Jeannie, A Texas Frontier Girl Books One - Three
Rating:
Summary: McMurtry should stick to fiction; that's what this book was!
Review: From what I've seen in this book the ONLY thing McMurtry got right was the date Crazy Horse died. It should have a big disclaimer printed on the front of the book: "This book is a work of fiction!" McMurtry has the audacity to malign other writers and researchers for their conclusions and then he proceeds to do the same poor job of second guessing. Throughout the book he continually guesses at where Crazy Horse might have been or what he might have been doing. For the love of writing . . . if you don't know then say so. Don't just write to sell something! The book was the WORST I've bought in years! I've demanded my money back, and I think McMurtry owes us all a big apology for wasting our time!
Rating:
Summary: A little balance perhaps
Review: I am a fan of the Pengin Lives books. I'll say that up front. But Mr. McMurtry's book on Crazy Horse falls short of the standard the series sets with other works like the book on Rosa Parks. The author has clearly done a great deal of reading and researching to prepare for his task, however, through that he seems to have become bitter about the amount of speculation there has been to fill in the unknown holes of Crazy Horse's story. So he sets out to write a book with just the facts. Nothin' but the facts. And he clings to his effort by breezing past events of the day that were influencing Crazy Horse's life both directly and indirectly. He drops names and dates and places as if we had all done the research with him. In the end the writing and tone of McMurtry's work culminates in a dud of a biography that is lacking in richness. I won't go so far as to say that there is nothing to be learned from reading this book (as some other reviewers have said); I learned a thing or two. I am just left with the feeling that Mr. McMurtry has squandered a great opportunity by pinning himself to flimsy rules out of seeming contempt for other authors on the subject. For shame.
| 
