Rating: 
Summary: Very successful at what it sets out to be
Review: This is the fourth Penguin Lives title I've read (the other three being Auchincloss on Wilson, Keegan on Churchill, and Johnson on Napoleon), and for pure biography, this one is the best of the four. Other reviewers who criticize the relative superficiality of Blount's analysis need to recognize that the Penguin Lives are not intended to be comprehensive, ground-breaking studies. That just couldn't be done in under 200 pages.No, these books -- essays, almost -- are introductions to, surveys of, key historical figures. The question shouldn't be, Did Blount give us all the answers about Lee? but rather, Has Blount painted a sharp enough portrait that we have a clear idea of who the man was, why he did what he did, and what impact his life had? I think the answer to that latter question is a decisive Yes. Unlike Keegan and Johnson, Blount is not a professional historian. But he's done a fine job with a subject all biographers admit to be a man very difficult to get close to. This fact in itself forms part of Blount's theme, as he explores the roots of Lee's famous reserve and inapproachability. He largely avoids pop psychoanalysis -- when he wades into those waters, he tells us he's doing so -- and his insights seem to make sense. I particularly appreciated the way Blount addressed the issue that defines (many, if not most) modern treatments of Lee: the question of whether he can justly be called a Great Man while having fought, if not explicitly for slavery itself, at least for a nation and a culture in which slavery played a central role. The fact that Blount sees nuances to the discussion, instead of making the absolute, unarguable, definitive statement "Lee = slavery = evil", may cause ideologues, or people who just don't know any better, to reject his reasonings entirely. But that would be their loss because this section, too, is rewarding reading. I said this book is good pure biography. That's because Blount is an excellent writer and storyteller, as well as a fine presenter and interpreter of facts. As a "humorist," (I've always hated that term), he has a keen eye for the ridiculous, both in human behavior and in historians' more labored interpretations. So, no, this isn't a scholarly, definitive, biography that will become the new gold standard in Civil War Studies. But as a highly readable thumbnail portrait of one of the most loved and reviled, admired, misunderstood, and dare I say, greatest, figures in American history, I think it will be hard to beat.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a bad read
Review: This work is enjoyable although not exhaustive as it was not meant to be. The author should have stopped at page 163 as appendix's I, II, and III were a bit rambling and boring.
Rating:
Summary: Not a bad read
Review: This work is enjoyable although not exhaustive as it was not meant to be. The author should have stopped at page 163 as appendix's I, II, and III were a bit rambling and boring.
Rating: 
Summary: NOT WHAT I'D HOPED FOR!
Review: Too much psychoanalysis and too little factual information. Almost 140 years after the Civil War and Blount searchs for personality quirks to define a complex and interesting gentleman, general and leader. I'm disappointed too in the general trend for many historians to ever search and highlight as much negative as they can about our historical figures, especially military leaders. It's easy to second guess and use modern beliefs to define the past. Blount (or anyone else for that matter go lead men in battle for four years) and then write your book.
Rating:
Summary: Ah, the history of Robert E. Lee, I think.
Review: Well, Blount gives us the biography of Robert E. Lee and then some. Blount tries to give us the psychology of Lee and tends to put the focus off Lee when he does this. I am sure Blount is a real good cynic, but Robert E. Lee and the Civil War need better than this. When you do a biography of a great man like Lee, why spend excessive time talking of his tiny feet. For that matter, why talk about a joke called Pusyism and then spend ten or more pages reviewing this. (Pusyism was a movement in the Church of England, instilling more Roman Catholic traditions into the church, such as unmarried priests and the lead proponent was Father Pusy). Blount focuses on this an awful lot, when he should expand on Robert E. Lee.
Blount does an alright job reviewing the personal life of Robert E. Lee. However he does very poorly in analysis of his professional life and focuses a great deal on areas not relevant. I would have loved to have had Blount's opinion of the relationship between Lee and Davis, but sadly this is missing. What we get is jokes about feet and Pusyism. Jeepers, I could have done better with another book about Lee, by somebody more professional like Burke Davis.
Rating:
Summary: Ah, the history of Robert E. Lee, I think.
Review: Well, Blount gives us the biography of Robert E. Lee and then some. Blount tries to give us the psychology of Lee and tends to put the focus off Lee when he does this. I am sure Blount is a real good cynic, but Robert E. Lee and the Civil War need better than this. When you do a biography of a great man like Lee, why spend excessive time talking of his tiny feet. For that matter, why talk about a joke called Pusyism and then spend ten or more pages reviewing this. (Pusyism was a movement in the Church of England, instilling more Roman Catholic traditions into the church, such as unmarried priests and the lead proponent was Father Pusy). Blount focuses on this an awful lot, when he should expand on Robert E. Lee.
Blount does an alright job reviewing the personal life of Robert E. Lee. However he does very poorly in analysis of his professional life and focuses a great deal on areas not relevant. I would have loved to have had Blount's opinion of the relationship between Lee and Davis, but sadly this is missing. What we get is jokes about feet and Pusyism. Jeepers, I could have done better with another book about Lee, by somebody more professional like Burke Davis.
| 
