Rating: 
Summary: Good read but
Review: Certainly the second best of the four Lonesome Dove books. As reported elsewhere, the typos are distracting, and the research sloppy, but all in all a decent story. I would have loved an translation of Scull's Greek writing
Rating: 
Summary: Another Disappointment
Review: In yet another attempt to rekindle the greatness he exhibited in the original 'Lonesome Dove,' McMurtry has again failed to even come close. One can only hope he doesn't try any more; it's becoming "boresome" to have to wade through 900 pages of drivel every three or four years. The first problem is that McMurtry doesn't give us any hint as to how these rangers became the fearsome legends they were in the original--staggering around the desert doing nothing other than trying to prevent themselves from starving to death. The only thing Gus wants to do is talk about whores and the only thing Call wants to do is act in a totally illogical manner. Was every woman west of the Mississippi a whore, or otherwise totally preoccupied with sex? Was every cowboy except for Gus and Call a complete and utter moron? And the bad guys, oh boy, are they ever bad. Skinning people alive. Hanging them from cages to be eaten by vultures. Killing, raping, mauling men, women and children. Boiling horses. Yike! Then we have to endure the endless stage-setting by McMurtry for what is eventually to occur in 'Lonesome Dove.' Thus we have page after page of the dreadful speculations about each other between Call and Maggie, endless scenes of Gus moping about his loss of Clara, simple-minded characterizations of Pea-Eye, Deets and Jake, apparently only thrown in to legitimize what is to come in 'Lonesome Dove,' which doesn't need it. It's almost as if a rank amateur was asked to write a prequel to the book, and was too bone-headed and timid to think of anything which didn't appear in the original. Yes, some of the scenes with Ahumado were entertaining, if wildly improbable, and the Indian stories were mildly compelling. What this book really needed is an editor unafraid of the colossus which McMurtry has become to chop out about a third of this.
Rating: 
Summary: Simply tremendous!
Review: I just finished "Comanche Moon" and, once again, I am overwhelmed by the character developments of Larry McMurtry. I loved the way he moved us through the life and death of Buffalo Hump. I was enthralled by his ability to sneak up on us and steal horses with Kicking Horse and Three Birds. The Kickapoo Indian guide, Famous Shoes, filled me with wonderful insights into the contradictions between the way "the Whites" and "the People" view life. Call and McCrae continue down another trail, always leading the reader deeper into an understanding of their simple spin on life. Rangerin', whiskey and whores...sure does appeal to me. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and I've read all four of the Lonsome Dove series. As a matter of fact, I'm going to start over again with each of them. Thanks, Mr. McMurtry.
Rating:
Summary: COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
Review: ASIDE FROM THE TYPOS, THIS BOOK LEFT ME FEELING EMPTY. DID CALL AND GUS EVER DO ANY GOOD AT ALL 0N THE PLAINS. SEEMS TO ME THEY JUST RAN AROUND IN CIRCLES CHASING INDIANS AND MEXICANS. IN LD U FEEL LIKE THEY ACCOMPLISHED GREAT THINGS IN THEIR YOUTH. THOUGHT THEY WERE TWO OF THE MOST FAMOUS TEXAS RANGERS THAT EVER LIVED COMANCHE MOON DIDN'T SUPPORT THIS.
Rating:
Summary: Second-best in the Lonesome Dove saga
Review: Simon & Schuster -- I would have proofread this book FOR FREE, and I'm sure other McMurtry fans would have volunteered as well. Why all the typographical errors? I still enjoyed the book, feeling that McMurtry wasn't as pessimistic as he'd been in Dead Man's Walk and Streets of Laredo. Still can't compare to Lonesome Dove, but what can? I think all readers would have appreciated a better proofreading job.
Rating:
Summary: The Editor Could Use A Little Torture
Review: This book is filled with typos!!! I can't believe the editors would allow this to happen to a McMurtry book! Hey, I liked this book. It filled in a lot of the gaps leading up to Lonesome Dove. I was humored that Call got what he deserved. I was happy to learn that Maggie did have an enjoyable relationship, at least for awhile, with Call. A good read and if you are a Lonesome Dove fan, get this book. Now that we know about Woodrow and Augustas, I think it's time McMurtry filled us in on Cadillac Jack and Duane Moore. These are two sequals I would love to read. Mr. McMurtry, if you read this, what's the deal. What about Cadillac Jack and Duane Moore?
Rating:
Summary: Second time around
Review: Upon reading 'Comanche Moon' for a second time my opinions changed a little. The parts relating to Inish Scull and Buffalo Hump were very good but I kept getting the feeling that some of the other chapters referring to Gus and Call were in answer to FAQ's and were 'filling in the gaps'. Sadly, some of it is wrong and does not gell (time-wise) with the other books. In LD, I got the impression that Call had 'been with' Maggie 3 or 4 times and that was all. In 'Comanche Moon' they seem to have a solid relationship - for a while. Jake mentions to Gus in LD 'when we both courted her' (Clara) but hardly went near her in 'Comanche Moon'. Buffalo Hump's 'Comanche Moon' raid actually took place in 1840 - BEFORE 'Dead man's Walk' took place in 1841-3. 600 warriors took part and attacked Victoria and the seaport of Linnville (now Bastrop - I think). Here it is bang in the middle of the book - in 1861 ! I also concur with others regarding firearms - there were too many references to 'repeating rifles' which did not exist at the time.
Rating:
Summary: Good read but full of contradictions
Review: I thought 'Comanche Moon a darn good read but was irritated by the inconsistancies in the time-line. Statements regarding age, years past, etc are often contradictory when compared to the other books. It is difficult to establish an accurate time line for the 'Lonesome Dove' series of books. There are actual events which can be used as points of reference. In the original book we learn that Newt is 17 and Pea Eye makes a reference to 'Custer's Last Stand'. It can be implied that the year is 1877 or later. This would mean that Newt was born in 1860 and that Maggie told Call of her pregnancy sometime in 1859 - *at the latest*. In 'Comanche Moon', there are several references to Call's age and length of service. " A Texas Ranger from the age of 19", "ten years listening to Gus talk", etc. There is a reference to the Santa Fe Expedition where they (Gus & Call) were "not yet 20 years old". 'Dead Man's Walk' is based loosely on the Santa Fe Expedition of 1841 and the 'Black Beans' incident of early 1843. Therefore, Gus and Call were born in 1822 - despite the conflicting statement in LD that Gus is "2 years older" than Call. It is later stated that "they are the same age". If the above is true then the year of 'Comanche Moon' is 1851 and both Gus & Call are 29. We know from references that it is well after 1849 (49'er's) and before the Civil War in 1861. However, Call states at one point that he had last seen Buffalo Hump "12 years before" which would have been in 1843 - making the year 1855. So you can see that there are 3 possible dates 1851, 1855 and 1859 for the starting point to 'Comanche Moon'. Elisha Pease was Governor of Texas from 1853-1857 and 1867-1869. It seems that the character of Deets was based on the real life Bose Ikard who worked for Charles Goodnight. The inscription on Deets' grave is remarkably similar to that on Bose Ikard's grave. The incident where Gus and Pea Eye are attacked by Indians leading to (ultimately) Gus's death is based on the real life event when Oliver Loving (Charles Goodnight's partner) was trapped by Indians sending 'One Armed' Bill Wilson for help. There are also historical inaccuracies (in all the books). In 'Dead Man's Walk' set in 1841-3 they met Charles Goodnight who was only born in 1836. If Lady Carey had her portrait painted by Gainsborough (who died in 1788!) she must be over 60 - with a 10 year old son. In 'Streets of Laredo' Roy Bean was hanged by Joey Garza - but in reality he outlived John Wesley Hardin. It seems that either Mr McMurtry does not remember what his characters have done or said or his research is faulty. This detracts from an otherwise excellent series of books.
Rating:
Summary: Fair Book, historicly inaccurate
Review: This book does not compare to Lonesome Dove in its compelling story line. Though it is still a good read. My main complaint is the lousy job of proof reading and the obvious errors in historical facts.
Bullets and repeating rifles (Winchesters) were not invented in the time frame of this book.
(Pre-Civil War)
This is unexcusable from an author who should know better and for a publishing company to let it in the book when it is obviously wrong.
Rating:
Summary: McMurtry in top form/Simon & Schuster in shameful form
Review: I have enjoyed all of the books in The Lonesome Dove saga, and this was no exception. My review though is about the unbelievably bad proof- reading job done on this book. I have been an avid reader for close to 40 years, and have read a wide selection of classics, modern fiction, histories, biographies,and text books, written and published throughout this century and the last. I have NEVER read a book that had so many typos, misspelled words, repeated bits of dialogue, and descriptive pronouns attributed to the wrong character. What is going on ? This is the work of a celebrated writer. His work deserves perfection in the presentation. I usually find one or two typos every dozen books or so. In this book I counted at least 10. All I can say is "Shame on you, Simon & Schuster"
|
