Reading anything?

[Vik]

Rereading 'The Eyes of the Dragon' by Stephen King.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Ye-es!

David Williams' "Bitterly Divided: the South's Inner Civil War'

and

Andrew F. Smith's "Starving the South: How the North Won the Civil War"

Some differences, but more similiarities than differences.

Smith: the Northerner from New York State.
Williams: the Southener from Georgia.

Smith: college professor.
Williams: same.

Smith: covers agriculture and food distribution in both the North and South.
Williams: same, but also the draft in the South, and the violence that occurred in the South, between Southeners, during the Civil War.

Smith: covers both North and South.
Williams: covers primarily the South.

Smith: food hoarding and food speculation in the South, which lead to food shortages, which lead to widespread food riots.
Williams: same.

Smith: harshly condemnatory of Southern leadership in the South during the Civil War.
Williams: same, if somewhat less harshly.

Smith: provides summary.
Willliams: same.

Also covers . . .
Smith: military maneuvers during the Civil War.
Williams: the role of African-Americans and Native Americans in the South during the Civil War.

Biggest disagreement.
Support for the North by Southeners due to lack of support for Southener leadership.
Smith: little
Williams: lots

Biggest agreement
Despite the subtitle of Smith's book, the North did not win the Civil War, the South lost the Civil War, and the South lost the Civil War, because it loss the support of the people living in the South at that time, and the support of the people was lost, because the Southern leadership was incompetent, or, at least more incompetent than the Northern leadership.

Something few people North or South have faced up to, even within the last 150 years.

Next time: Brandon T. Sniders' "D.C. Comics: the Ultimate Character Guide."

[indianasmith]

An interesting analysis, and one I would enjoy reading.
However, I think I would disagree with the conclusion.  Between the North's population advantage, its enormous advantage in manufacturing capacity, and the military leadership it had in the form of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas, I think that, even if Southern troops had been better fed and supplied, the result would have been the same. Irresistible application of overwhelming force.

However, I will read both tomes, if I can find them.

[Flick James]

An interesting analysis, and one I would enjoy reading.
However, I think I would disagree with the conclusion.  Between the North's population advantage, its enormous advantage in manufacturing capacity, and the military leadership it had in the form of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas, I think that, even if Southern troops had been better fed and supplied, the result would have been the same. Irresistible application of overwhelming force.

However, I will read both tomes, if I can find them.

The South quickly identified Grant as a butcher who won by brute force, but I'm not so sure. I think he was a fine military leader. I also think that his heart was in the right place as President. Unfortunately I don't think he really knew what he was doing and is well known for his corrupt appointees.

[lester1/2jr]

book of old master paintings of biblical scenes

[AndyC]

Back to Knots and Crosses, by Ian Rankin. This time, it seems I'm more in the mood for a detective story, so I'm already halfway through. A bit light on the thrills so far, but the characters and situations are interesting enough to keep me reading. There are several subplots that keep things moving while the murder mystery is not much more than a backdrop for the first half. It makes sense. The police know nothing, so the reader is not given much more information than is known, and exhaustion from long hours of boring legwork kind of drives some of the other events.

Interesting to read a Scottish police procedural for a change. I've gotten used to reading about mounties.

[indianasmith]

Flick - Jean Smith wrote an excellent biography of Grant a few years back; it is definitely worth a read!
I may read it again this summer.

[Vik]

'The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three' by Stephen King.

[Flick James]

'The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three' by Stephen King.

I haven't read any of the final three volumes. However, out of the first four, The Drawing of the Three is my favorite.

[Vik]

'The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three' by Stephen King.

I haven't read any of the final three volumes. However, out of the first four, The Drawing of the Three is my favorite.

Besides the great ending, I was disappointed with Volume I. This one is great so far, though, and I'm only 60 pages in.

[Doggett]

[ChaosTheory]

Dress Your Family In Corduroy and Denim by David Sedaris. 
I prefer ...Engulfed in Flames but this one's good too.  I love when he writes about his childhood; specifically when he portrays Amy as having been a deviant straight from the cradle 

[Doggett]

Girlfriend bought me these. Dunno when I'll get to read them.

[Psycho Circus]

^ Avoid "The Dark Half", it starts off quite interesting and then gets proggressively more ridiculous, plus it's actually poorly written.

[Doggett]

^ Avoid "The Dark Half", it starts off quite interesting and then gets proggressively more ridiculous, plus it's actually poorly written.

I'm determined to finish all, no matter how bad.
Its 'The Tomnmyknockers' I'm dreading, it huge. You could beat a zombie unconscious with it. I'm a big fan of 'Needful Thing's and 'The Dark Half' is the precursor to it so I figured it's worth a shot. The film wasn't too awful.

And if that wasn't enough king, I found this in hardback for £4.99.
I'd be a fool to not buy it.



I seriously think I have enough for a while...