GDG- footnotes

[Chet Diestel]

  In approaching Foote's Narrative, it is vital to keep in mind that he was, 
by profession, a writer of fiction and not history. Moreover, he was 
originally commissioned to write a rather breezy one-volume history of the 
Civil War for the mass book market and not for historians or even serious 
students of the conflict.
  The original proved impossible in his eyes --- as well as those of his 
publisher --- and the massive three-volume work became the delightful 
result. However, one-volume or three-volumes, the breezy writing style ---  
that of a fictional narrative --- never changed. Foote is not so much 
telling the reader what happened as he is telling a Homeric national epic 
filled with great events in which heroes and villains take their carefully 
cued time on stage to play out their part in the unfolding drama.
  Indeed, I have always believed the interpretative writing style almost, by 
its very nature, precluded the need for an extensive section of footnotes. 
Moreover, given the expanse and size of the each volume, if detailed page 
after page of footnotes were added how many more pages --- or in reality, 
additional volumes --- would have needed to be published?
  His narrative is certainly based upon the known facts when the volumes 
were written, and is to a great extent based upon expansion and his personal 
interpretation of perhaps the ultimate of primary sources, The Official 
Records, along with other published sources ranging from autobiographies and 
biographies of players of high and low degree to such works as Douglas 
Southall Freeman's four-volume biography of Lee and the three-volume "Lee's 
Lieutenants."
    Also, Foote's approach to writing the narrative, I believe,  must have 
been influenced to some degree from stories about the war he heard from the 
lips of the ever-thinning ranks of Confederate veterans he knew in his 
youth --- a real-life connection we, of course, will never experience.
     With regards,
       Chet

Esteemed GDG Member Mike Rinehart Contributes:

   Footnotes are important to me as well because of obvious reasons. I  like 
to see where the writer got the infomation to support his or her  opinion. 
Shelby Foote's books are not meant for that but I wanted to make the point 
that as I've read Volume 1 I see a lot of the offical records, Grants Auto, 
Sherman's Auto and Lee by Freeman.  But the offical records seems to be 
Shelby's main source.

  One thing that I will give his works.  He take the time to explain battles 
and campaigns in the West, East, Trans-Mississippi and even New Mexico.  We 
tend to forget about these battles and situations.  Thats  not to take away 
from any author who has published these things before or since but Shelby 
does an excellent job with this.  I feel that is what makes his three-volume 
narrative so good.

   Secondly, Ken Burns used Shelby's books as his main source for his film 
in 1990.  Shelby was one of the main consultants but these books along  with 
Catton's one-volume history of the war had to have been Ken's main 
influences.

   Third, Shelby's books have value as source material.  However, I would 
cross reference his ideas and statements with other major works to make sure 
that they are accurate (If I were to write a history of Braxton Bragg or a 
regimential history).

   Finally, I am at page 305 and I am over 30% done with Volume One.  I 
cannot say that I am anything less then please with the book.  It has  been 
a fine read and a good break from my normal studies of Lincoln, Lincoln's 
murder, the Army of Northern Virginia and RE Lee.  Granted all  of those are 
in Foote's work but I tend to study them in depth and avoid  general 
histories like The Civil War: A Narrative.