Rating: 
Summary: I had heard so much about this book but.......
Review: Critique I have decided to design my critique on the basis of Stephen Crane and the book itself. I have to declare that I was extremely angry at all the people who have acclaimed this book to be one of the best references to the atmosphere of the Civil War. First, I would like to state that when a book is exclaimed at describing the atmosphere of an event such as the Civil War it should describe it from all angularities. Not once did the book mention any noted person who partook action in the civil war. People such as Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee have not been mentioned at all. I can personally describe to you, many problems that the Union army had in its management but Mr. Crane just inhibits the scenario by fabricating some of his characters to mock the lieutenants and generals in charge of a certain regiment or brigade. Another key implement in educing the atmosphere of the Civil War in a novel, would be to interact common day people into the book. People don't realize that the United States Civil War devastated the lives of the normal people more than any military man. There was only one scene in which there was interaction in the book on that basis. That was the scene consisting of Henry Fleming's departure from his mother. Lastly, on the atmospheric scenario, I cannot see how one can write a book on the Civil War without bringing out its essential clause onto the surface. Absolutely nothing was discussed regarding slavery. The very element which stifled the talks and brought forth the Civil War was slavery. I don't see how any author could avert this scenario from the overall picture of the book. I understand that his intent was not to dramatize slavery but there should have been some sort of external link connecting it in some way with the plot. I would also like to claim that Stephen Crane does an extremely poor job in linking his parameters within the plot. In the beginning of the story he describes how the youth is nervous about retreating from the battleground and how is philosophically thinking up of ways to describe his point. Though I personally believe that this is a lame counter plan for such mentality I will grant him the premise. What is pathetic is that he never again mentions how Henry overcame this great fear that he had. He shows that he runs away, watches his friend die, and recuperates with the army. Nevertheless, he never mentions how this dread of retreating was overcome. Another parameter within the plot which is left unmentioned is the transformation that occurs in Wilson. Crane established in the beginning of the story that Wilson had a very arrogant and protruding personality. He also hinted in the 3rd chapter about how he might be vulnerable to minute cases of defamation, but there is no analysis given in the entire book which might show one the transformation that Wilson had from being a conceited and supercilious person to becoming a kind and loving one. My third critique on the book is that it is just too boring. The context of the book is described in such asinine manners that it makes me feel a very unimaginative person-who had an 800 on the verbal section of the SAT - wrote the book. After the first half of the book was finished, Crane just basically repeated the scenes with different words. They fight, win or lose, sleep, wake up, and fight again. It seemed to me that I was reading a newspaper written in the 1850's. You might also notice this in my summary. I pondered for hours thinking on how I could make the second half of the book sound interesting but I think that I have not fully been successful in doing so. My last and most important critique on the book is that it should have been written in first person. Most of the people that I have protruded upon claim that the perspective one chooses to write a story from doesn't affect the story in any way but I think that it heavily does. In a book like this it is very important that one implicates the first person perspective and not the third person because I believe that the essential goal of the author is to show the mental disintegrations that the war caused amongst people. I am not claiming that physical details in a war story are unimportant. Rather, I am stating that in a book mental aspects have to be given a higher statute. Physical details can be accumulated through any newspaper or news magazine while mental aspects can usually not. There is no way the same impact can be drawn when you are describing the mentality of a person as a third person bystander. It does not provide the reader with the same type of personal mental connection with a character. I personally think that third person perspective should only be used when there is more than one definite main character. In conclusion I would like to state that although the intent of the Stephen Crane was positive and well thought of, he failed in influencing any type unique claim which supports the intent. I know that most people would personally disagree with me because I have just seemingly slandered one of the renown classics in the literature world but the information above does reflect my personal overview. If Stephen Crane was alive today I would advise him to read Uncle Tom's Cabin and take notes.
Rating:
Summary: The worst book I ever read.
Review: If you are considering reading or buying this book...don't. I find wars very interesting, but this book has very little war and a lot of descriptive junk. Did you know that Stephen Crane wrote this book in 10 days? He really tried hard too (not). If you are looking for a good book on the Civil War, check out Across Five Aprils, you will like it.
Rating: 
Summary: a patient, complex book
Review: If only to counteract the overall poor rating of this book by students forced to read this book when too immature and impatient to comprehend it, I had to write this. This book is "confusing" because war is complex and both horrible and attractive to the main character, and I suppose it is "boring" because it does not give the pat answers to the problems of war that it raises, but rather requires thoughtful and patient reading. This is not to blame our schoolchildren--it is only to register for them that the fact that something is not immediately consumable by their infantile appetites does not entitle them to comment upon the worth of something that is valued in the world. In other word, be patient when those who are good and more experienced than you recommend something not immediately palatable--you may learn something.
Rating:
Summary: The last war book I'll ever read
Review: I felt that the book moved too slowly and didn't have enough discriptive info. to make it more interesting. The only thing that I liked about the book was the symbolism. I feel that since Crane himself had not been in a war he did not know what to write about because he had never experienced the pressures of war.
Rating: 
Summary: How can you call this boring?
Review: If anything, this book isn't boring. Seeing a war through the eyes of a scared soldier makes us wonder at our own "fearlessness" if we were put to the test. Though the book deals a lot with courage, take a look at the struggle with guilt and duty this kid goes through. The guilt drives him to bravery, which then leads to a feeling of completed duty. I. like the rest of US grade schoolers, had to read this.. watch the movie... read it agian in a lter class.. and watch the movie again. Now in 12th grade, and looking back.. I see how much more the book means.. not just a homework assignment taking the place of TV watching. Give it a try...oyu might learn somthing ;) 4 stars cuz it doesnt compare with the 5 star books within its genre... Catch 22 rules! ...
Rating:
Summary: A great novel
Review: It is awful how these idiots who have to read this book for high school have weighted down The Red Badge's rating. Looking at their "criticisms," if you can call them that, it seems their main problem was that "it's boring," "too many descriptions," "I didn't understand it." It's sad that supposedly high school students are writing as shallowly as that. The basic story of The Red Badge is well known: young Henry Fleming goes into combat for the first time, flees in cowardice, takes an introspective journey into his own soul, then redeems himself with his courage on the battlefield. Somehow, the boy who entered the battle, has come out a man. The title itself is ironic. It comes from Henry's envy of those wounded soldiers who have their own "red badge of courage" which will protect them from any accusations of cowardice, but when Henry himself gets his own little "red badge" from getting clubbed on the head with a gunstock it becomes clear how superficial a mark of honor it is. True courage resides within. To those people who want to read this book: do not be scared off by these bad reviews from students assigned to read the book; they were already prejudiced against it from the start.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic of our time
Review: This book is first of all a book of historical value. It is the first modern war book, and it shows the war as it propably were. (I don't know for sure, cause I wasn't there.) Read it if you are sick tired of books with villains and heroes.
Rating: 
Summary: It was an O.K. Book, But hard to understand
Review: I picked this book to read thinking it would give me an idea of what happened during the civil war. If your not into war and things i donnot reccommend this book. To me it was boring and it wasn't interesting. But whatever baskets your ball eh?
Rating:
Summary: Needs less work...
Review: This book was long, boring, repetative and hard to understand. It would have been a lot more enjoyable had the author written in clear, short, concise sentences more rather than have a 4 page description after every word.
Rating:
Summary: THIS BOOK SUCKS!!!
Review: I think this book royally sucks. Why, may i ask, do i want to read about the horrors of war? My english teacher forced us to read it. I'm only on the 7th chapter but it's NOT getting any better. I admire the writer for trying and it was probably a popular book in the early 1900s, but the language is boring and not easy to understand. I hate the symbolism. Oh well. I'll try not to fall asleep reading the rest of it.
| 
