Ken Burn's the Civil War: Historians Respond

Rating:
Summary: Okay Book of the PBS Series
Review: Although Ken Burns' PBS series, "The Civil War," won wide acclaim from viewers and critics and was PBS best-watched show, many historians disagreed in differing degrees to Ken Burns' approach to portraying the Civil War. Thus Robert Brent Toplin solicited and gathered responses from several historians, some who agree with Burns' methodology and some who disagree. What emerges is a portrait not only of a war that divided our nation over slavery in the 1860's, but a war that continues to divide us as we seek to define and explain that war. Of interest was the editor's thesis that each age looks at the Civil War through it's experiences and times: WWI era saw the Civil War as a silly regional conflict, much as they viewed WWI; WWII era saw the Civil War as a battle between good and evil and the start of civil rights. Today, we view war as a waste in the aftermath of Vietnam and that is reflected in our contemporary views of the 1860's conflict. That viewpoint is seen in Burns' epic.

Rating:
Summary: Historian's Complain is more accurrate
Review: The premise behind Toplin's book is a very interesting one. When Ken Burns' epic documentary on the Civil War received the highest ratings in public television's history, historian's immediately began to comment on it. Toplin brought together, in this one volume, many of today's most notable Civil War Era historians to turn their comments into essays about the film's pros and cons. Unfortunately, the historians only seem to care about the cons. With "The Civil War", Burns was attempting to educate the public at large, not the academic historian. This fact seems to be lost upon the authors of these essays. The primary focus of the criticisms in this book do not deal with the film itself, but rather with what the film forgot. Most complaints are geared towards the treatment of women and blacks. This is because the authors of these essays are primarily social historians, with the exception of Prof. Gallagher and Prof. Boritt. It is no surprise then that the majority of the essays scathe Burns for not telling the whole story of slavery, or of women, or of Reconstruction. By doing this, these authors have missed the point that the film series is about war, not social change. Therefore, this book only gets three stars because the content is not of good quality. While each author is correct in their statements about what Burns left out, they do not grasp what Burns was attempting to do. The most interesting part of the book in fact is when Burns and his writer Ward respond to the historians responses, and I believe put them in their place. I suggest reading this after viewing the films, but take what they say with a grain of salt, and do not judge the film series by what is written in this book.

Rating:
Summary: Historian's Complain is more accurrate
Review: The premise behind Toplin's book is a very interesting one. When Ken Burns' epic documentary on the Civil War received the highest ratings in public television's history, historian's immediately began to comment on it. Toplin brought together, in this one volume, many of today's most notable Civil War Era historians to turn their comments into essays about the film's pros and cons. Unfortunately, the historians only seem to care about the cons. With "The Civil War", Burns was attempting to educate the public at large, not the academic historian. This fact seems to be lost upon the authors of these essays. The primary focus of the criticisms in this book do not deal with the film itself, but rather with what the film forgot. Most complaints are geared towards the treatment of women and blacks. This is because the authors of these essays are primarily social historians, with the exception of Prof. Gallagher and Prof. Boritt. It is no surprise then that the majority of the essays scathe Burns for not telling the whole story of slavery, or of women, or of Reconstruction. By doing this, these authors have missed the point that the film series is about war, not social change. Therefore, this book only gets three stars because the content is not of good quality. While each author is correct in their statements about what Burns left out, they do not grasp what Burns was attempting to do. The most interesting part of the book in fact is when Burns and his writer Ward respond to the historians responses, and I believe put them in their place. I suggest reading this after viewing the films, but take what they say with a grain of salt, and do not judge the film series by what is written in this book.

Rating:
Summary: Lots o' laffs at the critics of Burns masterpiece
Review: This book is a riot. I have always thought Ken Burns' Civil War miniseries was a one of the best 12 hours of TV ever shown. The series recently aired again for the first time in a few years and it's just as good as I remembered, possibly even better. Granted, it's not perfect and one could probably nitpick it forever, but few TV shows have ever equaled it for sheer emotional impact. This book is not about nitpicking. It is about politically correct professors ripping it to shreads, and is it ever funny. In general, they whine about how the series devotes too much time talking about battles between dead white males, instead of the really important stuff, such as slavery, women's issues, class struggles, and the like. One (I think it was Eric Foner) has a bone up his kiester over the fact that the miniseries devotes almost nothing to Reconstruction (his speciality, by the way) and instead shows photos and movies of Confederate and Union veterans at a reunion picnic at Gettysburg. Another complains about the use of the term Rebel. Somebody whined about the fact that Shelby Foote, the white Southern popular writer got more airtime than Barbera Fields, the black female professor. And so on. If you want to know why liberal professors get so little attention outside their own circles and why, on the other hand, non-specialist Civil War history is so popular, you have to read this book. It's worth it for the laughs alone.

Rating:
Summary: Lots o' laffs at the critics of Burns masterpiece
Review: This book is a riot. I have always thought Ken Burns' Civil War miniseries was a one of the best 12 hours of TV ever shown. The series recently aired again for the first time in a few years and it's just as good as I remembered, possibly even better. Granted, it's not perfect and one could probably nitpick it forever, but few TV shows have ever equaled it for sheer emotional impact. This book is not about nitpicking. It is about politically correct professors ripping it to shreads, and is it ever funny. In general, they whine about how the series devotes too much time talking about battles between dead white males, instead of the really important stuff, such as slavery, women's issues, class struggles, and the like. One (I think it was Eric Foner) has a bone up his kiester over the fact that the miniseries devotes almost nothing to Reconstruction (his speciality, by the way) and instead shows photos and movies of Confederate and Union veterans at a reunion picnic at Gettysburg. Another complains about the use of the term Rebel. Somebody whined about the fact that Shelby Foote, the white Southern popular writer got more airtime than Barbera Fields, the black female professor. And so on. If you want to know why liberal professors get so little attention outside their own circles and why, on the other hand, non-specialist Civil War history is so popular, you have to read this book. It's worth it for the laughs alone.

Rating:
Summary: an interesting look at the series
Review: this book is an interesting critique of the great Civil war series. I think the best essay was that done by Ken Burns himself. This book gives a fair and balanced look at the series through the eyes of different minded historians