Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
|
![Confederate General R.S. Ewell: Robert E. Lee's Hesitant Commander](http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0813123054.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg) |
Confederate General R.S. Ewell: Robert E. Lee's Hesitant Commander |
List Price: $39.95
Your Price: $26.37 |
![](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/buy-from-tan.gif) |
|
|
Product Info |
Reviews |
<< 1 >>
Rating: ![2 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-2-0.gif) Summary: uneven writing; sloppy analysis Review: Curious as to why someone would write another biography of Ewell so soon after the publication of Donald Pfanz's definitive work, I picked up Casdorph's offering. From the first pages, it's obvious that the author began the project with preconceived notions of Ewell as a hesitant and indecisive general -- an opinion formed from long-discredited popular understandings of the Gettysburg and Overland campaigns -- and then used them to inform his entire study. To Casdorph, Ewell was a psychologically cripple unable to take the initiative -- regardless of what the evidence he uncovered suggests. Every time Ewell is aggressive, the author labels it an abberation (after a number of such occurances, the thoughtful reader will start to wonder about the logic of calling them "abberations"). Whenever Ewell shows discretion or caution, the author jumps on it as a failing. Further, Casdorph lacks a basic understanding of his own source materials, frequently hurling charges against Ewell that are contradicted by quotations offered in the sentence -- sometimes even the clause -- previous.
The work combines ill-informed opinions with mishandled and selectively chosen evidence. The University of Kentucky Press needs to reconsider the qualifications of whatever peer reviewer recommended this effort as worthy of publication.
<< 1 >>
|
|
|
|