Sherman Books

When I started reading "Commanding Voices Of Blue And Grey" By Brian M. Thomson, I'll admit I wasn't exactly thrilled to read it, but after a while it started to grow on me. The book was kind of hard to read because it wasn't in a story format like I'm used to. This book didn't really have a main character through the whole book, and it was kind of like a textbook, except much more interesting. Brian M. Thomson did a terrific job turning the experiences of different people that served in the civil war into short story like scenes. This book had some good battle scenes and some very important people that turned the tide in the war. This book was extremely good about showing both sides of the story. This book helped me completely understand the civil war and it was also surprisingly good.

This slim book features two series of black-and-white self-portraits by the famous photographer Cindy Sherman: "Bus Riders" and "Murder Mystery People." Sherman took the photographs in 1976 (a year before she started her best-known series "Untitled Film Stills"), but they were printed only in 2000 for an exhibition at Glenn Horowitz Bookseller in East Hampton, New York.

Each photo is in portrait orientation, about 12x19cm in size on a 15x23cm page. All have the same white background and a similar lighting scheme (based on the shadows cast); all show a foot-activated remote shutter release cable on the wood floor; and all prove that Sherman had some skills with makeup, props, and photography early in her career.

"Bus Riders" consists of 15 untitled photos; using Amazon's "LOOK INSIDE!" feature you can see #1-#6. Sherman portrays various types of people you might find on public transit, like a guy with sunglasses and a briefcase. In all but the last image, Sherman is sitting on a chair; in five photos, she is made up to be black.

"Murder Mystery People" consists of 17 photos such as "the press" (also shown on the cover of the book), "the son (at funeral)," and "the actress (at murder scene)." "LOOK INSIDE!" shows only #17, "the drunken wife." Overall, I thought this series more successful than "Bus Riders" because it shows a greater variety of poses and outfits, because it evokes both laughter and sadness, and because it leads one to imagine a narrative that might fit the photos.

The back cover contains a CD, "The Cindy Sessions." This has 16 musical pieces by "The Glove Compartment, aka Gian Carlo Feleppa" that combine "found sounds" (like spoken snippets from answering machine messages and radio shows) with instrumentals. Examples of the song titles are "Stereophonic Nagging," "Barefoot Sound," and "Finally We Have No Hair." I'm unsure how to classify the music, but the word "weird" comes to mind, and I'm also unsure how to connect any of the pieces with Sherman's work.

Among the problems here: (1) The book design is uninspiring and uninviting. For example, what's with the UPC code on the red back cover? (2) The Foreword by Edsel Williams gives little information or insight. (3) The shots are apparently uncropped, but judicious cropping (especially in "Bus Riders") would have cut out extraneous background, shoes, etc. and focused attention on Sherman. (4) Finally, there is little reason to have this book if you have the catalog "Cindy Sherman" from the Serpentine Gallery (2003, with essay by Rochelle Steiner).*

If you are a Cindy Sherman fan, purchase this and other books by/about Sherman from Amazon.com!

* In specific, the Serpentine Gallery catalog has: (a) most of the photos from this book, although in a smaller size: "Bus Riders" photos 13 & 15, and all the "Murder Mystery People" photos (but with different numbering and in a different order); (b) a much better essay; (c) a composite photo of "Murder Mystery People" not in this book; (d) four close-up photos of Sherman's face from 1975, predating the photos in this book; (e) a lot of photos from more recent series by Sherman; and (f) a biography & bibliography.

This biography of Sherman focuses principally on his Atlanta and March to the Sea campaigns. Miers' approach is to use the diaries and personal letters of soldiers, citizens, and other "average" people to tell the story of Sherman's campaigns through the eyes of those who lived through them. Miers's selection of subjects includes people from both sides and is quite balanced in its view, and Miers himself makes little attempt to interpret or pass judgment upon any of the subjects he uses.

It is interesting to read a biography of Sherman that has been around for as long as this one has. Today most historians take one of two positions: either that what Sherman did was necessary to end the war, and that he and his men committed no (or relatively few) atrocities beyond what was essential to the completion of the war or that he and his men committed devilish outrages including the wholesale burning of Columbia, the drowning of slaves, and the violation of countless virtuous women. Modern interpretations of Sherman's campaigns tend to focus on how necessary or how extensive his destruction was-Miers does not attempt to either condemn or justify it. Instead he relates simply what happened. This is both a positive and a negative-good because it provides a fluid interpretation of events without becoming bogged down in the author's personal bias, but bad because it leaves a feeling that, as a whole, the work is lacking. In other words, the book passes as an interesting narrative but fails to qualify as a truly useful piece of interpretative history. If you have access to this book it is worth a casual read, but don't expect anything profound or overly insightful.

I assumed from the marketing that this was a comprehensive book, but to actually "do your own" divorce you also need their other book on divorce and possibly the support calculator book. It's too bad because I had given the other book to my ex and now I have to buy it all over again.

A first stab by David Sherman (Starfist, Demontech, Nightfghters) into the the world of vampires. The story opens with an introduction to our Hero? Rocks, a stoic, quiet, focused Vampire who hunts other Vampires. We are dropped into the scene of Rocks moving across southwestern United States on one of his "Hunts". A Volenteer for this excursion, the story unfolds as he trys to keep track of his latest prey.

The Multithreaded story moves in a solid method, from hunter to prey, providing details that open up the how, the why, the who, the when and where of the interaction between Rocks and the group he is after.

The group Rocks is chasing is an interesting bunch, they get themselves into situations that are not for the faint of heart. The scenes are very graphically described. There are five members of the group, three women and two men, they are sexualy involved, both with each other and their victums, be warned this is also described very graphically.

The characters are developed as you move into the story, which makes for a very easy read. The balance from end to end also keeps you moving, with little chance for stall. The backstory is filled out in sufficient detail, that you can easily identify with the characters.

I have read, withstanding his nightfighter series (havent got them yet), most of David Shermans tomes. I enjoy his style, he has a great way of balance with all his stories from begining to end that make you feel fullfilled when done, a rarity in this day of mediocrity. A great deal of books on the market build up these giant stories and ramrod you to the end, and then within a few pages of the end, just slam-bang, conclude.

I am, overall, not a fan of Vampires, or the genre. I liked this book because of its different approach. The stigma's of the vampire's of legend were clearly explained away, and believable, within the context of the story. Rocks, his prey, and supporting cast ARE Vampires, expect nothing short of that, just in a different light.

The rating of three stars and not higher is only on a couple points. The violence I expected, its a vampire book. The sexual content was a little rough, and in some cases was a minor detractor to the story. I believe it could have been toned down a tad. A couple of the longer victum scenes I think could have been shorter, giving way to more action on "the Hunt" portion, but again this is minor.

A solid, balance, enjoyable effort!
Thanks David!
Fairday,
Roger Mihalko

Sherman Alexie is a fantastically gifted writer, and Reservation Blues and his short stories are recognized as masterpieces. This book, however, is so different in its focus and execution that one wonders what Alexie's motivation was in publishing it. The main character is despicable--and obviously mentally ill. He brutalizes the most innocent of victims, shocking the reader with murders which could not be more loathsome in their graphic detail. This violence is gratuitous. We are given no understanding of the man or his motivation.

Some might argue that because he was stolen from his Indian mother and given to whites to raise that he never felt part of either the white or Indian worlds, and that this is his justification, if not his motivation. But he was an infant when this kidnapping happened, however disgraceful it was, and his adoptive parents were loving ones. It's the old Nature vs. Nurture theme, and Alexie seems to be saying here that Nurture counts for less than nothing if it takes place in a white environment.

Perhaps Alexie is trying to turn the tables by having an Indian exact the kind of gratuitous violence against the white world that has been exacted against Native Americans. If that is the case, he has confused the issue by having his killer be part of neither culture, with no social values from either culture infusing his actions. And if Alexie's point is that other Indians are justified in feeling like his killer, one wonders why his depiction of Indian life in Reservation Blues, for example, is so bleak and why his main characters there escape to the white world, "[singing] together...with the shadow horses....a song of mourning that would become a song of celebration." Mary Whipple

Sherman reevaluates Dee on the basis of his non-occult writings, especially his marginalia (adervsaria) to various texts and his political writings on navigation and the British Empire (a term he coined). The analysis itself is valuable and important, contributing to an understanding of Dee as a man deeply involved with his political and social environment, as well as clarifying the ways in which Dee read his sources.

Unfortunately, Sherman goes overboard in attacking all previous scholarship on Dee, particularly what he calls the "Yatesian" approaches (in reference to Frances Yates). He never wastes an opportunity to attack, implying at times that his predecessors did not really read Dee but rather constructed a myth (of the magus) about him.

While it is certainly true that Yates overstated her thesis, she saw a good deal in Dee that was accurate. And without a thorough reevaluation of the _Monas hieroglyphica_, the angelic conversations or _Libri mysteriorum_, and such varied works as _Propaedeumata aphoristica_, it is not possible to assess Dee's work as a whole. Sherman seems to think that all the occult works are incidental, irrelevant to who Dee really was. But he never argues this directly, preferring instead to pick out the flaws in Graham Yewbrey and Peter French. In the endnotes, he does note that Nicholas Clulee and Deborah Harkness have done excellent work on understanding Dee the occultist, but he gives them little credit despite his own total incomprehension of those works.

Sherman's account is important and should be read by anyone seriously interested in Dee. But the total project cannot be understood absent Clulee and Harkness. More recently, Szonyi and Hakansson have added important rereadings, not of course available to Sherman. If one takes Sherman alone, one has a wrong impression of Dee -- which is precisely what he accuses his predecessors of. Taken with a grain of salt for all its remarks about other scholarship, including especially the totally wrong-headed misunderstandings of hermeneutics and poststructuralism, and in fact taken strictly as the work of a very narrow historian interpreting a few texts, Sherman is essential. But if you think this book covers the range of Dee, you (like Sherman) are sadly mistaken. Read Clulee and Harkness, then come back to Sherman.

This is a basic ASL teaching book. Very few pictures and mostly information for people teaching beginners ASL. It does have some interesting features that make it worth a glance.

It's a graduate dissertation, and it reads like one. It's very dense. There is a short description of each author's interpretation of the passage, and whether they accept the narrow interpretation (that 'the least' applies only to Christians) or to a wider interpretation (that 'the least' is the whole world). It is exhaustive. The last section is a summary and analysis of the previous section. It is not an easy read, but it is a valuable contribution to Biblical studies.

This book was originally published in the 1940's. In the newer Preface, Castel heralds it as ahead of its time in its treatment of the leaders. The Confederate generals, even Hood are treated with greater respect than they had traditionally been and Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan come under serious criticism. If there was a wave of books in the past few decades which expressed similar views, I must have missed them.

The objective parts of this book are quite good. Battles and campaigns are described in understandable detail and accompanied by very useful maps, which, although sometimes mere sketches, more than adequately show major troop movements relative to the surrounding towns and transporation features.

My major criticism of this work is that it arrives at evaluations of the Union generals in terms of their immediate situations without viewing them in a broader perspective. The War had been going on in the East for nearly 3 years with no Union victory in sight. In this repect, I agree with the author than the generalship of Lee ( although he was never as effective after losing Stonewall Jackson ) was vastly superior to that of the generals who went up against him. However, this is not surprising since the United Sates Army had no comprehensive strategy until the accession of Grant as General-in-Chief. Grant's masterful grand strategy made ultimate victory possible even when smaller-scale events went against him. As one author wrote, whether Grant won or lost a battle on the way to his goal it was all the same to him.

Grant's strategy was not only militarily brilliant, but also politically sound. True, the Confederate armies were more valid objectives than places, but the Northern public considered Richmond and Atlanta highly important. Let's remember that the fall of Atlanta and the conquest of the Shenandoah Valley were responsible for Lincoln's reelection. The strategy of occupation was discarded. So was the strategy of annihilation, which the author favors. As so many bloody battles had demonstrated, it was virtually impossible to utterly destroy the enemy; he could always regroup for later action. Thus, Grant turned to the strategy of exhaustion, in which the army on the offense destroys its opponent's means of support - communications, transportation, food sources, industry, economy, and morale. This was accomplished through the wide envelopment and converging columns that characterize the final campaign. Grant's ( Meades's ) army held on to Lee, preventing most maneuvering and use of interior lines to transfer troops. While Lee was pinned down in Virginia, Sherman was able to seize politically-important objectives while greatly restricting the area from which Lee could draw supplies, wrecking much of the Southern economy, and severely damaging the morale of soldiers and undermining support for the war on the home front. The War ended with Sherman, with arguably the finest army in the world, a mere 125 miles from Lee's rear. This was the ultimate in the "hammer and anvil" metaphor the author so often uses.

Confederate side shows, like Early's raid and Hood's escape into Tennessee, had no effect on the outcome of the War. With better luck, the fear that Early spread through the North might have been prolonged, but not fatal. And Hood had no chance against George Thomas, perhaps the best battlefield commander in the Union Army, while the former had inferior numbers and grave supply problems. Had Hood slipped by Nashville, his invasion would have vaporized worse than Bragg's had done. Sherman's decision to break loose of his vulnerable supply lines and turn his back on Hood ( leaving him to Thomas and Schofield ) was one of the most daring and successful coups in military history.

I would recommend this book for its thought-provoking revisions of mainstream thought, but the reader should maintain the broader perspective that the author misses.