some reading and a little lesson in the history of psychology ~

[lookingland]

for the 50bookchallenge:

no. 57 ~ A Soldier's Heart by gary paulsen. coupled with an article from the Journal of Urology (don't ask, i work in a library, i just come across things) about Joshua Chamberlain's pelvic wound, it was a thoroughly demoralizing evening of reading last night. paulsen's book is, hands down, the most depressing Civil War story i have ever read. and get this: near as i can tell, it's geared for pre-teens. the story isn't much and hashes a number of tired stand-bys: kid runs off to enlist, lies about his age to get in, suffers the trials and boredom of warfare, sees things that would raise hair on a billiard ball (one particular description of what happens to horses under cannon fire will stick with me forever now, thank you, gary). the kid is wounded horribly and makes it home, but the final image of the book (gadzooks), is him sitting on the bank, thinking about "pretty things" and checking the condition of a well-oiled .36 he's brought with him to his solitary picnic.

and the final kicker, of course, is that it's based on a real person. i should have known it was going to be pretty harsh. it opens up with a primer on post-traumatic stress-disorder and how there was no treatment for it back in those days. the "soldier's heart" refers to one variation on what ptsd was called back then. the most common clinical term was neurasthenia, which referred to a mysterious debilitating depressive malady with no particular discernible physical origins from which most of the post-war servicemen suffered. which brings us back to Joshua Chamberlain, who also suffered from a "soldier's heart" and was even put out of battle service for a spell to recover after a nervous breakdown following the battle of Gettysburg. he rebounded, but apparently suffered from lingering agony (and a number of surgeries) after being wounded, as well as having intensely dark periods for the rest of his life (like so many men did).

geh. this was a real horrorshow of a little book and a good reminder of just how screwed up people emerged from this war. there was some good stuff the book, extra points for never mentioning hardtack, but overall uneven in the writing (perhaps because it's a tad dumbed down for 10 year-olds). i admit, though, i was irritated by an endnote which says that the carnage at Gettysburg was the bloodiest battle in American history, killing more men in two hours than all the previous wars put together. i believe that distinction belongs to the battle at Antietam (which i previously mentioned in my post of september 17th).



in other news, i am drawing, drawing, drawing, trying to take some risks with my composition choices, though so far they are mostly safe. anyway, it's going well.

: D

Comments

[lolocat.livejournal.com]

Hey, we carry that book. I haven't looked at it though. I may have to now.

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

well it's certainly a quick read ~ i don't think it's even 100 pages.

: D

[lolocat.livejournal.com]

I read it today at work. I agree that it seems a bit much for the age group. Interesting that it touches on this subject though.

However, I found it was annoying that it regurgitated things. Bullets hitting in mid-air. Trading with the reb across the river. Wasn't that in Gods and Generals? I also found it annoying that he kept calling them Rebs.

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

i figgered the "reb" thing was sort of from the main character's pov, but i agree about the whole trading coffee and tobacco (trot out that tired old tale, why don't he? booooring).

i thought there were a lot of weak points in the book overall ~ the strengths were all in just the history and the researched particulars (which aren't really attributable to paulsen).

: o p

I read this...

[(Anonymous)]

on the airplane going to Chicago for my first conference with Loyola.

I've always heard that Gettysburg was the bloodiest BATTLE (over several days) and Antietam the bloodiest single day in the war. Is that incorrect then?

moo, who is certain of nothing and ready to be set straight ;-)

Re: I read this...

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

it's the "killing more men in two hours than all the previous wars put together" that i'm quibbling with. yes, Gettysburg was a bigger bloodbath over its three-day spread, but Antietam was the two hour bloodbath that caused more casualties than all the previous wars put together.

says the total geek.

i'm not a stats freak, but some Civil War stuff sticks in your head and stays there ~ and for me this is one of those things. hahahahahaha ~

you din't say what you thought of the book!

: D

Re: I read this...

[(Anonymous)]

Well, yeah. I get that (about Antietam and Gettysburg) but I see how confusion arises about what people mean. I guess whether the statement is true or not would depend on what 2 hourses (ha) are being compared...that kind of statistic always seems suspect to me anyway--as if someone was standing counting corpes with a stop watch in hand. ffft.

About the book: I thought the story was devastatingly awful--as it should be. I knew it was based on a real guy at the get-go.

I'm not a huge Paulsen fan style-wise, but it bothered me less here probably because the book is so short.

moo (again)

Re: I read this...

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

well there can only be one "bloodiest day" in America since the body count isn't going to be equal (speculation or no). and no, no one was standing there with a ticker, but casualty-wise, given what we have to go on, that bloodiest "day" is indisputably September 17th. Gettysburg had three days to pile up bodies (about 46 thousand of them). Antietam only had those few hours (to pile up about 24 thousand casualties). So it's not so much which two hours are being compared since no two hours at Gettysburg piled up as many bodies as at Antietam.

and at some point you just think about the sheer volume we're talking here and it's all so vile that the point seems moot ~ dead is dead, and horrendously so.

not a paulsen fan either, so it all prolly neither here nor there anyway ~ hahahahahaha.

: D

Right.

[(Anonymous)]

Bloodiest single day indisputably the one day battle of Antietam.

Bloodiest battle, 3 day battle of Gettysburg (on a technicality).

Bloodiest two hours...who the hell could possibly know this one? This is the one that requires the stop watch. I'm just not buying this statistic at all.

I think peeps were making surmises after the battles about what probably occurred and if it was conducive propaganda-wise it got spewed out to the press.

I don't think war needs much embellishment.

It's horror is organic and no place for a pissing contest.

moo (yet again)

Re: Right.

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

i find the body-counting a fascinating fixation ~ people deal with things in such unusual (and often distancing ways).

: o p