What do you think?
Rate this book
Wildwood Boys
From the raw clay of historical fact, James Carlos Blake has sculpted a powerful novel of both a man and an America at war with themselves. Here is the brutally honest story of free-spirit William Anderson, who is pulled into a savage conflict of state against state in the years leading up to the Civil War. When Bill suffers a catastrophic loss, a fury is unleashed in his anguished soul. He becomes the most fearsome guerrilla captain and earns a name that becomes whispered with reverence and terror: "Bloody Bill."
384 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 2000
51 people are currently reading
296 people want to read
About the author
James Carlos Blake
22 books211 followersJames Carlos Blake was an American writer of novels, novellas, short stories, and essays. His work has received extensive critical favor and several notable awards. He has been called “one of the greatest chroniclers of the mythical American outlaw life” as well as “one of the most original writers in America today and … certainly one of the bravest.” He was a recipient of the University of South Florida's Distinguished Humanities Alumnus Award and a member of the Texas Institute of Letters.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
March 18, 2024
This is a review of two books: 'Wildwood Boys: A Novel' by James Carlos Blake and 'Bloody Bill Anderson: The Short, Savage Life of a Civil War Guerrilla' by Albert Castel and Thomas Goodrich.
Here we have a novel and a biography that cover the same historical territory. Assuming that the reader is interested in the subject, which should he/she read first?
For someone who is not very familiar with the history surrounding William Anderson, it probably would be more enjoyable to read the novel and then follow-up with the biography. Since the biography goes into more detail and provides more historical context, it could serve as a reality check to see how far the novelist departed from the historical record by interjecting imagination into the story. Of course, it is the novelist's right and duty to do just that. Otherwise, we would just set the novel aside and read the biography, because it shouldn’t stray from the historical record. And this one doesn’t. Despite its short length (144 pages), it is thoroughly researched and well written. After all, as the subtitle indicates Anderson did not live a long life.
It has been argued that geography is destiny, that where we are born and where we live shapes our fate more than we can ever imagine. Today, greater mobility and mass communication has lessened the impact of geography on our lives, but have not removed it entirely. However, in the 19th century (and earlier) it was a powerful influence on where and how people lived.
Geography certainly played its role in the lives of the Anderson brothers, William and Jim, as it did in the lives of two other sets of brothers, the Youngers and the Jameses. They found their lives and those of their respective families enmeshed in conflict in the border war between Missouri and Kansas six years before the firing on Ft. Sumter officially touched off the beginning of the Civil War. After the war began, all three sets of brothers eventually became members of irregular Confederate guerrilla bands, which the Unionists referred to as “bushwhackers.” The war continued along the border and spilled over into the area north of the Missouri River in the state of Missouri. All of the brothers, except for Jesse James, fought in the band commanded by the most famous of the Missouri guerrilla leaders, William Clarke Quantrill. When William Anderson, who had been one of the chief lieutenants in the band, quarreled with Quantrill, he and his followers broke away and formed their own band. Frank James and Cole Younger elected to follow Anderson. Jesse, who became a guerrilla fighter at age sixteen, may have later joined Anderson’s band, or maybe not. That he became a guerrilla fighter is documented, but he never fought under Quantrill, despite what some novelists have written and what Hollywood has produced, and the evidence is sketchy regarding whether or not he was ever a member of Anderson’s band.
Anderson earned the nickname “Bloody Bill” after his rampaging depredations became even more violent and more deadly after the death of his favorite sister. I will leave the details to the reader as to the cause of death, but whether or not it was their fault, Federal authorities were blamed. To this point Anderson was not all that well-known by the Federal and state forces that were attempting to control the guerrilla bands. However, the murderous rampage that followed his sister’s death made him and his band the most feared guerrilla fighters in Missouri and Kansas, even eclipsing Quantrill’s reputation.
As Castel and Goodrich wrote, “[n]ow he had become the ‘devil incarnate,’ the most ferocious and feared bushwhacker of all – and for Federal troops, the one they wished most and tried hardest to kill. Scarcely a day passed without the commander of the Union District of North Missouri, Brig. Gen. Clinton B. Fisk, telegraphing one or more of his officers to ‘exterminate’ Anderson. But his soldiers rarely so much as engaged him, or if they did, usually it was they, not he, who got the worst of it.
“To begin with, they had trouble locating him. He knew where he was going; they didn’t. He had plenty of sympathetic civilians willing to shelter and feed his men and provide information about the ‘bluebellies’ – where and how many. The Federals had their sources of aid and intelligence also, but not as many or as reliable. Consequently, in this particular chase the fox enjoyed an advantage over the hounds.
“And this fox, if brought to bay, turned into a wolf – with deadlier fangs.”
Federal and state forces attempting to control the guerrillas also committed their share of atrocities. Moreover, bands of marauders from Kansas, known as “Jayhawkers,” crossed the border to engage in the burning and pillaging of the property of Missourians and did so without making much if any distinction between the property of Unionists and that of secessionists. The losers in this internecine conflict, as always in civil conflicts, were the civilians that were caught in the middle. Guerrillas had to have the support of the rural inhabitants in order to survive and the Union forces had to neutralize that support in order to prevail. Therefore, both sides were guilty of using violence and intimidation in an effort to win support for their cause. In the process, the citizens of the area feared both sides, but neutrality wasn’t an option. It was a dirty, violent, uncivilized conflict in which all the rules of war were ignored.
If it is true that the Civil War began on the Kansas-Missouri border six years before the rest of the country entered the conflict, it could also be said that in some respects that it did not end with Lee’s surrender at Appomattox in 1865. For after the war many of the ex-guerrillas took the tactics they had learned during the Civil War and applied them to the art of robbing trains and banks. The most notorious gang was that led by the Jameses and the Youngers. There is no doubt that had William Anderson survived the war he too would have become one of the prominent outlaws. In fact, his brother Jim did become an outlaw. Therefore, in some respects the war did not end until Frank James was tried and acquitted almost two decades after the war officially ended.
Castel and Goodrich, both natives of Kansas, have written a fair and objective account of the man who became the “devil incarnate” in a civil struggle that in many cases destroyed the cohesion that had united families, communities, and the society at large. Both historians are considered the leading authorities on the Kansas-Missouri border war and the guerrilla conflict that plagued both states during the Civil War.
Castel’s other books include: "Civil War in Kansas: Reaping the Whirlwind"; "General Sterling Price and the Civil War in the West"; and "William Clarke Quantrill: Terror of the Border."
Among Goodrich’s books are "Black Flag: Guerrilla Warfare on the Western Border, 1861-1865" and "Bloody Dawn: The Story of the Lawrence Massacre."
James Carlos Blake is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Mexico. When he was six-years old, his family moved to Brownsville, Texas. As a novelist Blake is, much like Cormac McCarthy, drawn to the subject of evil. He is fascinated with the lives of outlaws and, as one reviewer noted, he “explores human nature at its worst.” Obviously then, one of the common threads running through his novels is violence, whether the subjects are historical figures such as John Wesley Hardin, Pancho Villa, 1930’s gangster Harry Pierpont, “Bloody Bill” Anderson or fictional characters such as the Wolfe brothers.
In an interview in GQ, Blake said that he was interested in [historical] outlaws, but that his real interest is in their private lives. He went on to say, “These guys all had childhoods, families, lovers, interests other than crime and where there is no historical record of those things, I enjoyed inventing their interior lives without violating any of the factual evidence.”
In fact, Blake found himself, intentionally or unintentionally, humanizing Anderson. Many people believe that Anderson was a violent, cold-hearted murderer, an example of “human nature at its worst,” whose character was totally devoid of human compassion and therefore beyond redemption – even at the hands of a skilled novelist. Ironically, Anderson’s behavior was even more brutal in real life than in Blake’s portrayal. It is a classic case of truth being stranger than fiction.
Blake also said in the GQ interview, “Violence is the most elemental truth of life. It’s the central shaper of history, the ultimate determiner of whether A or B is going to get his way…. At its core, history is a story of violence at work.”
I must confess that although it was hard for me to accept some of the sections of the book where he invented “interior lives without violating any of the factual evidence,” overall Blake does generally stick to the known historical record and in the process of writing a gritty, brutally realistic novel he also passes along a lot of interesting history about a very unfortunate period in the life of our nation.
After all, as Oakley Hall wrote in the introduction of his best-known novel, "Warlock," a thinly disguised treatment of the Wyatt Earp-Doc Holliday friendship, “By combining what did happen with what might have happened I have tried to show what should have happened….The pursuit of truth, not of facts, is the business of fiction.”
Here we have a novel and a biography that cover the same historical territory. Assuming that the reader is interested in the subject, which should he/she read first?
For someone who is not very familiar with the history surrounding William Anderson, it probably would be more enjoyable to read the novel and then follow-up with the biography. Since the biography goes into more detail and provides more historical context, it could serve as a reality check to see how far the novelist departed from the historical record by interjecting imagination into the story. Of course, it is the novelist's right and duty to do just that. Otherwise, we would just set the novel aside and read the biography, because it shouldn’t stray from the historical record. And this one doesn’t. Despite its short length (144 pages), it is thoroughly researched and well written. After all, as the subtitle indicates Anderson did not live a long life.
It has been argued that geography is destiny, that where we are born and where we live shapes our fate more than we can ever imagine. Today, greater mobility and mass communication has lessened the impact of geography on our lives, but have not removed it entirely. However, in the 19th century (and earlier) it was a powerful influence on where and how people lived.
Geography certainly played its role in the lives of the Anderson brothers, William and Jim, as it did in the lives of two other sets of brothers, the Youngers and the Jameses. They found their lives and those of their respective families enmeshed in conflict in the border war between Missouri and Kansas six years before the firing on Ft. Sumter officially touched off the beginning of the Civil War. After the war began, all three sets of brothers eventually became members of irregular Confederate guerrilla bands, which the Unionists referred to as “bushwhackers.” The war continued along the border and spilled over into the area north of the Missouri River in the state of Missouri. All of the brothers, except for Jesse James, fought in the band commanded by the most famous of the Missouri guerrilla leaders, William Clarke Quantrill. When William Anderson, who had been one of the chief lieutenants in the band, quarreled with Quantrill, he and his followers broke away and formed their own band. Frank James and Cole Younger elected to follow Anderson. Jesse, who became a guerrilla fighter at age sixteen, may have later joined Anderson’s band, or maybe not. That he became a guerrilla fighter is documented, but he never fought under Quantrill, despite what some novelists have written and what Hollywood has produced, and the evidence is sketchy regarding whether or not he was ever a member of Anderson’s band.
Anderson earned the nickname “Bloody Bill” after his rampaging depredations became even more violent and more deadly after the death of his favorite sister. I will leave the details to the reader as to the cause of death, but whether or not it was their fault, Federal authorities were blamed. To this point Anderson was not all that well-known by the Federal and state forces that were attempting to control the guerrilla bands. However, the murderous rampage that followed his sister’s death made him and his band the most feared guerrilla fighters in Missouri and Kansas, even eclipsing Quantrill’s reputation.
As Castel and Goodrich wrote, “[n]ow he had become the ‘devil incarnate,’ the most ferocious and feared bushwhacker of all – and for Federal troops, the one they wished most and tried hardest to kill. Scarcely a day passed without the commander of the Union District of North Missouri, Brig. Gen. Clinton B. Fisk, telegraphing one or more of his officers to ‘exterminate’ Anderson. But his soldiers rarely so much as engaged him, or if they did, usually it was they, not he, who got the worst of it.
“To begin with, they had trouble locating him. He knew where he was going; they didn’t. He had plenty of sympathetic civilians willing to shelter and feed his men and provide information about the ‘bluebellies’ – where and how many. The Federals had their sources of aid and intelligence also, but not as many or as reliable. Consequently, in this particular chase the fox enjoyed an advantage over the hounds.
“And this fox, if brought to bay, turned into a wolf – with deadlier fangs.”
Federal and state forces attempting to control the guerrillas also committed their share of atrocities. Moreover, bands of marauders from Kansas, known as “Jayhawkers,” crossed the border to engage in the burning and pillaging of the property of Missourians and did so without making much if any distinction between the property of Unionists and that of secessionists. The losers in this internecine conflict, as always in civil conflicts, were the civilians that were caught in the middle. Guerrillas had to have the support of the rural inhabitants in order to survive and the Union forces had to neutralize that support in order to prevail. Therefore, both sides were guilty of using violence and intimidation in an effort to win support for their cause. In the process, the citizens of the area feared both sides, but neutrality wasn’t an option. It was a dirty, violent, uncivilized conflict in which all the rules of war were ignored.
If it is true that the Civil War began on the Kansas-Missouri border six years before the rest of the country entered the conflict, it could also be said that in some respects that it did not end with Lee’s surrender at Appomattox in 1865. For after the war many of the ex-guerrillas took the tactics they had learned during the Civil War and applied them to the art of robbing trains and banks. The most notorious gang was that led by the Jameses and the Youngers. There is no doubt that had William Anderson survived the war he too would have become one of the prominent outlaws. In fact, his brother Jim did become an outlaw. Therefore, in some respects the war did not end until Frank James was tried and acquitted almost two decades after the war officially ended.
Castel and Goodrich, both natives of Kansas, have written a fair and objective account of the man who became the “devil incarnate” in a civil struggle that in many cases destroyed the cohesion that had united families, communities, and the society at large. Both historians are considered the leading authorities on the Kansas-Missouri border war and the guerrilla conflict that plagued both states during the Civil War.
Castel’s other books include: "Civil War in Kansas: Reaping the Whirlwind"; "General Sterling Price and the Civil War in the West"; and "William Clarke Quantrill: Terror of the Border."
Among Goodrich’s books are "Black Flag: Guerrilla Warfare on the Western Border, 1861-1865" and "Bloody Dawn: The Story of the Lawrence Massacre."
James Carlos Blake is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Mexico. When he was six-years old, his family moved to Brownsville, Texas. As a novelist Blake is, much like Cormac McCarthy, drawn to the subject of evil. He is fascinated with the lives of outlaws and, as one reviewer noted, he “explores human nature at its worst.” Obviously then, one of the common threads running through his novels is violence, whether the subjects are historical figures such as John Wesley Hardin, Pancho Villa, 1930’s gangster Harry Pierpont, “Bloody Bill” Anderson or fictional characters such as the Wolfe brothers.
In an interview in GQ, Blake said that he was interested in [historical] outlaws, but that his real interest is in their private lives. He went on to say, “These guys all had childhoods, families, lovers, interests other than crime and where there is no historical record of those things, I enjoyed inventing their interior lives without violating any of the factual evidence.”
In fact, Blake found himself, intentionally or unintentionally, humanizing Anderson. Many people believe that Anderson was a violent, cold-hearted murderer, an example of “human nature at its worst,” whose character was totally devoid of human compassion and therefore beyond redemption – even at the hands of a skilled novelist. Ironically, Anderson’s behavior was even more brutal in real life than in Blake’s portrayal. It is a classic case of truth being stranger than fiction.
Blake also said in the GQ interview, “Violence is the most elemental truth of life. It’s the central shaper of history, the ultimate determiner of whether A or B is going to get his way…. At its core, history is a story of violence at work.”
I must confess that although it was hard for me to accept some of the sections of the book where he invented “interior lives without violating any of the factual evidence,” overall Blake does generally stick to the known historical record and in the process of writing a gritty, brutally realistic novel he also passes along a lot of interesting history about a very unfortunate period in the life of our nation.
After all, as Oakley Hall wrote in the introduction of his best-known novel, "Warlock," a thinly disguised treatment of the Wyatt Earp-Doc Holliday friendship, “By combining what did happen with what might have happened I have tried to show what should have happened….The pursuit of truth, not of facts, is the business of fiction.”
December 24, 2012
Ok, what am I missing? Unlike almost every other reviewer, I did not like this book. Yes, Blake is a fine writer and he is quite good at evoking the time and place of the Missouri-Kansas borderlands during the Civil War. The plot was a bit snoozy--most likely he is really just writing an imagined biography. A person's life, even one as exciting an eventful and Bill Anderson's, doesn't have a plotline like a novel.
But what really irks me is the overall loathsomeness of the characters. I have a feeling that the author wants us to like Bloody Bill Anderson, Josephine Anderson, and the others, but I could not. I wanted them all to die and that was the main reason I kept reading. Blake wants to give the cast some motivation to be such bloodthirsty bastards, but I just never saw it. Beyond the fact that they all identify themselves as Southerners, what else motivates them? That they blame the Union for their daddy's death? But that isn't honest, as some of the blame lies in the fact that they were all law-breaking horse-thieves even before the war started. Do they have no ability to see reality or consequences for their own actions? So for me, the author's implied goal of making the characters believable and even at some level sympathetic was a no-go. As I read about Bill Anderson on the Internet, he is considered a murderous psychopath by historians. Not someone who can be understood.
Blake might claim he is trying to be brutally honest--I saw that statement by one of the reviewers. Honest about war, about what it does to soldiers. Honest without romanticizing or inserting any 21st century sensibility. OK, I respect that. But he does allow a modern tone to creep into his depiction of Anderson's relationship with his wife. They talk to each other about their mutual enjoyment of sex all the time, including in their letters. I find it hard to believe that these 19th century frontier husbands and wives would have done this. If I am wrong, and Blake has actually seen the letters, then I am happy to learn that Bill and Bush had such an enlightened and integrated sexual relationship.
Which brings me to my last point--the mixture of fact and non-fact. The author sprinkles actual primary sources in the text, which is great. But when we read Bill's and Bush's letters, we wonder whether they are real. I love historical novels, but I also love when the author includes an end note or some other device to indicate what is real and what is imaginary.
But what really irks me is the overall loathsomeness of the characters. I have a feeling that the author wants us to like Bloody Bill Anderson, Josephine Anderson, and the others, but I could not. I wanted them all to die and that was the main reason I kept reading. Blake wants to give the cast some motivation to be such bloodthirsty bastards, but I just never saw it. Beyond the fact that they all identify themselves as Southerners, what else motivates them? That they blame the Union for their daddy's death? But that isn't honest, as some of the blame lies in the fact that they were all law-breaking horse-thieves even before the war started. Do they have no ability to see reality or consequences for their own actions? So for me, the author's implied goal of making the characters believable and even at some level sympathetic was a no-go. As I read about Bill Anderson on the Internet, he is considered a murderous psychopath by historians. Not someone who can be understood.
Blake might claim he is trying to be brutally honest--I saw that statement by one of the reviewers. Honest about war, about what it does to soldiers. Honest without romanticizing or inserting any 21st century sensibility. OK, I respect that. But he does allow a modern tone to creep into his depiction of Anderson's relationship with his wife. They talk to each other about their mutual enjoyment of sex all the time, including in their letters. I find it hard to believe that these 19th century frontier husbands and wives would have done this. If I am wrong, and Blake has actually seen the letters, then I am happy to learn that Bill and Bush had such an enlightened and integrated sexual relationship.
Which brings me to my last point--the mixture of fact and non-fact. The author sprinkles actual primary sources in the text, which is great. But when we read Bill's and Bush's letters, we wonder whether they are real. I love historical novels, but I also love when the author includes an end note or some other device to indicate what is real and what is imaginary.
April 3, 2018
From your comfortable armchair, over the years, you've read the news of brutal war in Turkey, the Balkans, Iraq, and Syria, and marveled at the depths of inhumanity to which "those people" descended -- rape, mutilations, beheadings, crucifixions. How can this happen? Read Wildwood Boys and learn how loving, innocent youth become agents of Hell. It happened here, during the Civil War.
Think you know which Civil War statues should be toppled, and which side was "the Good Guys"? Think again. No side was all good.
Think you know which Civil War statues should be toppled, and which side was "the Good Guys"? Think again. No side was all good.
May 1, 2021
Historical fiction allows James Carlos Blake to operate at his best. In a string of novels originating with The Pistoleer, he projects a sense of rough authenticity unmatched among contemporary writers. In this novel, Blake focuses on the American Civil War and the Confederate men and their women who fought its guerrilla campaigns in the West. But he had to be thinking of the American War in Vietnam for much of it. Because Bill Anderson, the central figure of Wildwood Boys is nothing if not a combination of Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap, fashioning as Anderson does strategy and tactics that grow out of the geography and lay of the land, while simultaneously gaining strength through his support from among the Missourians along the border with Kansas. Only a policy of genocide that eliminates farmers and villages, killing people and burning homes, gives the Federal troops and their death squads the victory.
Of course, Anderson was an answer to this policy in kind. He, too, murders enemy sympathizers and burns their homes. Both sides take no prisoners. And mutilations, torture, and theft are the rules of the day. But the link to Vietnam is clearly there. The only thing missing in Southeast Asia was the willingness of the US to use the same extreme measures it used on its own citizens in the 1860s. Vietnam, too, was a civil war, where Americans took the wrong side. That is the clear implication of Blake's story.
Final note: there is much similarity here in both plot and attitude between Wildwood Boys and a film that appeared one year earlier, in 1999, Ride with the Devil. It's to be expected somewhat since they are both drawing on the same source material. But the attitudes and sympathies of both works are the same, too, even down to the jaded defeatism at the end.
Of course, Anderson was an answer to this policy in kind. He, too, murders enemy sympathizers and burns their homes. Both sides take no prisoners. And mutilations, torture, and theft are the rules of the day. But the link to Vietnam is clearly there. The only thing missing in Southeast Asia was the willingness of the US to use the same extreme measures it used on its own citizens in the 1860s. Vietnam, too, was a civil war, where Americans took the wrong side. That is the clear implication of Blake's story.
Final note: there is much similarity here in both plot and attitude between Wildwood Boys and a film that appeared one year earlier, in 1999, Ride with the Devil. It's to be expected somewhat since they are both drawing on the same source material. But the attitudes and sympathies of both works are the same, too, even down to the jaded defeatism at the end.
August 13, 2016
This book started to really drag in the middle. It turned out it just wasn't for me. It is taking me so long to read I just kind of gave up on it. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood.
August 8, 2021
I could read about cowboys all day long, and Blake's book is so easy to read; it's quite enjoyable.
But: part of the problem with romanticizing the Old West is that you tend to forget (or gloss over the fact) that at least half the people you're reading about chose to commit horrifying, inhuman crimes, all while in defense of a cause on the wrong side of history. It's easy to get lost in the haze of who shot who first, who scalped who first, who desecrated human remains first, etc, just as it's easy to sympathize with men and women who tried their best to stay out of the conflict, but were dragged into the war simply because of geography; but at the heart of a lot of the atrocities depicted within this book is a gang of boys on both sides of the Kansas/Missouri border, who felt that they should be allowed to do as they wanted, or just didn't want to be told what to do.
To his credit, Blake doesn't hide that; he does a very good job of highlighting that nearly everyone involved in bushwhacking/jayhawking is pretty much a war criminal, and the majority of them get the reward that's coming to them; but he also seems to portray 'Bloody Bill' Anderson and his cohorts in an unapologetic and often heroic light, which is a bit disconcerting.
We're also not gonna get into the whole incest thing. I mean, I get that it happened, but...
Maybe it's just me coming to terms with my own misgivings about my fascination with the Old West. Food for thought, I guess. Regardless, a stunningly good read.
9/10 would eat here again, as long as no one asked me about my politics.
But: part of the problem with romanticizing the Old West is that you tend to forget (or gloss over the fact) that at least half the people you're reading about chose to commit horrifying, inhuman crimes, all while in defense of a cause on the wrong side of history. It's easy to get lost in the haze of who shot who first, who scalped who first, who desecrated human remains first, etc, just as it's easy to sympathize with men and women who tried their best to stay out of the conflict, but were dragged into the war simply because of geography; but at the heart of a lot of the atrocities depicted within this book is a gang of boys on both sides of the Kansas/Missouri border, who felt that they should be allowed to do as they wanted, or just didn't want to be told what to do.
To his credit, Blake doesn't hide that; he does a very good job of highlighting that nearly everyone involved in bushwhacking/jayhawking is pretty much a war criminal, and the majority of them get the reward that's coming to them; but he also seems to portray 'Bloody Bill' Anderson and his cohorts in an unapologetic and often heroic light, which is a bit disconcerting.
We're also not gonna get into the whole incest thing. I mean, I get that it happened, but...
Maybe it's just me coming to terms with my own misgivings about my fascination with the Old West. Food for thought, I guess. Regardless, a stunningly good read.
9/10 would eat here again, as long as no one asked me about my politics.
July 23, 2022
While some might consider this a slow paced novel, it reminded me of reading Ron Hansen's prose. To a certain extent there is a bit of Cormac McCarthy here but I feel Cormac would of cut this novel in half.
Never would I have thought I would ever read a novel about Confederate bushwhackers who killed innocent people. The war detailed in Missouri and Kansas has less to do with slavery and more to do with killing a certain person because they killed a friend or family member. It's brutal and the author doesn't shy away from violence. In fact, they kill each other and nobody bats an eye. In one scene, they all whoop and yell "bladefight" as two bushwhackers get into a knife fight. One falls dead and it's as if he never existed. Death is cheap among these men.
The romantic subplot involves incest between the protagonist and his sister. I have to admit I almost ducked out like I did with another book but I stuck it out. Credit to James Carlos Blake for not shying away from this historic detail (it did happen as it was written) but not glorifying it.
There is a historic basis for this as all of the characters were real people from lesser known men such as Riley Crawford to the infamous Jesse James (who makes an appearance later in the novel). The novel does sag in the middle but by the middle of the second and all of the third act it springs forward at a fast pace as you realize not all of the bushwhackers are on the same page.
If you are slightly aware of the history you know the ending. A solid novel that is more western than Civil War literature but has made me appreciate James Carlos Blake even more.
Never would I have thought I would ever read a novel about Confederate bushwhackers who killed innocent people. The war detailed in Missouri and Kansas has less to do with slavery and more to do with killing a certain person because they killed a friend or family member. It's brutal and the author doesn't shy away from violence. In fact, they kill each other and nobody bats an eye. In one scene, they all whoop and yell "bladefight" as two bushwhackers get into a knife fight. One falls dead and it's as if he never existed. Death is cheap among these men.
The romantic subplot involves incest between the protagonist and his sister. I have to admit I almost ducked out like I did with another book but I stuck it out. Credit to James Carlos Blake for not shying away from this historic detail (it did happen as it was written) but not glorifying it.
There is a historic basis for this as all of the characters were real people from lesser known men such as Riley Crawford to the infamous Jesse James (who makes an appearance later in the novel). The novel does sag in the middle but by the middle of the second and all of the third act it springs forward at a fast pace as you realize not all of the bushwhackers are on the same page.
If you are slightly aware of the history you know the ending. A solid novel that is more western than Civil War literature but has made me appreciate James Carlos Blake even more.
July 14, 2019
I was raised on bloodthristy guerrillas' stories and looked to this with hopes of knowing who is this guy on bookcover and zero knowlege of Missouris state histoty exept "Will Munny from Missouri" (I'm not American).
And now I knew a tiny bit more and read a mighty bloody story of what happens if a good man does what he must do and how quickly you can change for a normal person to ear-cutting and wearing a string of those ears of your own neck (Riley! Smoke your trophies! They last longer!).
And the most horrible thing is Bill Anderson is a normal person, just like my late grandfather (reminds me a lot of him) but under some oressure and circumstances - you'll scalp your still living ememy and adorn your horse with his scalp too.
And now I knew a tiny bit more and read a mighty bloody story of what happens if a good man does what he must do and how quickly you can change for a normal person to ear-cutting and wearing a string of those ears of your own neck (Riley! Smoke your trophies! They last longer!).
And the most horrible thing is Bill Anderson is a normal person, just like my late grandfather (reminds me a lot of him) but under some oressure and circumstances - you'll scalp your still living ememy and adorn your horse with his scalp too.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 31, 2024
Easily one of the best books I have ever read. Had previously read The Pistoleer by Mr. Blake, which I also highly recommend. His writing style is unique and captivating, very in sync with the time frame.
"Bloody Bill" is often seen as a heartless monster of a human, and in a lot of ways he was, but driven so by circumstance and backed into a corner. James Carlos Blake does an excellent job of bringing to life the human element of one of history's most interesting and utterly ruthless characters.
An absolute must-read for anyone interested in the subject matter.
"Bloody Bill" is often seen as a heartless monster of a human, and in a lot of ways he was, but driven so by circumstance and backed into a corner. James Carlos Blake does an excellent job of bringing to life the human element of one of history's most interesting and utterly ruthless characters.
An absolute must-read for anyone interested in the subject matter.
February 19, 2025
Second Time Through
Didn't like it nearly so much this time. Some pretty frightening violence, but what puts me off is this "Josephine" business. True or False, I don't wanna hear about this Disney-type perversion.
Unhappy Ending
Something should be done about the excessive Gun Violence in this book. Also, many readers would appreciate a happier ending. Maybe it should be re-written, like all other history books are.
Didn't like it nearly so much this time. Some pretty frightening violence, but what puts me off is this "Josephine" business. True or False, I don't wanna hear about this Disney-type perversion.
Unhappy Ending
Something should be done about the excessive Gun Violence in this book. Also, many readers would appreciate a happier ending. Maybe it should be re-written, like all other history books are.
December 31, 2018
I picked this up thinking it was non-fiction (despite the book saying it was fiction on the cover). The characters were likeable and the story interesting enough for me to keep reading. However, the book is a little too long and drags in places. It aslo feels like it is trying to make some kind of statement but never does.
February 7, 2019
An exceptionally well written but gruesome historical fiction. The characters, a mix of infamous real and absorbing fictional heroes and villains of the civil war period. The hatred, depravity and quotidian experiences of those who fought for the north and south and for and against the Kansas and Missouri rivalry are so stark enough to foster nightmares.
June 18, 2019
I liked this book. I thought it finished almost too quickly though. The end felt rushed. It was a great story and after doing a bit of research it followed his life in general. It did seem to romanticize him a bit, but that’s the creative license accepted for this genre of book.
November 16, 2025
"The neighbor's face by contrast was antic with fear and the boy could sense danger closing fast. He felt himself grinning with a novel excitement he could not have described but did evermore want in his life."
September 20, 2019
Amazing book about the midwest before and during the civil war. This stuff never made it into the movies.
March 25, 2020
Superb
Read
May 18, 2020Bloody and gruesome but good characters and beautifully written about a horrible time in the history of the US
May 19, 2020
My love of history has a great deal to do with my enjoyment of this book.
June 27, 2020
I’d go 3 1/2. It’s good, and gives a whole new, and disturbing, perspective on a part of America at the time. Just too much repeat narrative.
May 18, 2025
Blake's prose is a joy to read and perfectly captures every scene. Although historical fiction, it's a great way to take a ride inside Confederate guerrilla operations.
December 29, 2020
4.5 stars, really good.
July 20, 2011
By far one of the best books I've read in quite a while. The accounts of the Quantrill raids and the exploits of real-life partisan hero/bloodthirsty villain (depending on your point of view)"Bloody" Bill Anderson, who is this novel's protagonist, are rendered in such masterful prose that I can't believe Blake doesn't have more than a cult following in the literary community. The Denver Post reviews the book as having the literary grace of Charles Frazier and the wallop of Larry McMurtry, but with the brutality, amazing writing, and explorations of human nature (mostly its dark side, but also its more redeeming qualities at times, particularly since he gives Bill Anderson a much larger likable streak than history suggests ever existed), I'd place this more in the middle ground between McMurtry and Cormac McCarthy. The descriptions in the more brutally violent scenes certainly wouldn't be out of place among the exploits of the rogues in Blood Meridian, and the descriptions of the wild lands of western Missouri are no less poignant in their way than McMurtry's sweeping descriptions of the empty plains as Gus pursues Blue Duck in Lonesome Dove.
Two things keep me from giving this novel a full five stars. The first is the fact that, while the writing is excellent, it takes a LONG time for the action to really get going. There are certainly exciting scenes here and there, particularly the scene of the Anderson and Berry brothers' thwarted attempt at drunken horse thieving by moon light, but fully a third of the book is set-up for what Bill Anderson will become, and I'm not entirely sure it was necessary to take 125 pages to set up what could have probably just as easily been done in 75 (though I'm not the author and I don't fault him much for that). The main thing that really got to me was the quasi-incestuous relationship Bill Anderson and his younger sister (fourteen years old to be precise when the shenanigans start) have throughout the better part of the book, and which is described in some detail on multiple occasions. They never actually have sex, but they do pretty much everything else, and while I understand why Blake does it and how it contributes to Bill Anderson ultimately becoming "Bloody Bill", it gets a bit, um, creepy after a while...
Those two things aside I would not hesitate to recommend this to anyone who likes McCarthy, Frazier or similar authors. It is a fantastic piece of writing and worth the minor inconveniences I mentioned to experience a fantastic novelist writing a piece of historically (admittedly, with a great deal of artistic license taken in the interpretation of the characters, especially Bloody Bill himself) based fiction that will stay with them for a long, long time.
Two things keep me from giving this novel a full five stars. The first is the fact that, while the writing is excellent, it takes a LONG time for the action to really get going. There are certainly exciting scenes here and there, particularly the scene of the Anderson and Berry brothers' thwarted attempt at drunken horse thieving by moon light, but fully a third of the book is set-up for what Bill Anderson will become, and I'm not entirely sure it was necessary to take 125 pages to set up what could have probably just as easily been done in 75 (though I'm not the author and I don't fault him much for that). The main thing that really got to me was the quasi-incestuous relationship Bill Anderson and his younger sister (fourteen years old to be precise when the shenanigans start) have throughout the better part of the book, and which is described in some detail on multiple occasions. They never actually have sex, but they do pretty much everything else, and while I understand why Blake does it and how it contributes to Bill Anderson ultimately becoming "Bloody Bill", it gets a bit, um, creepy after a while...
Those two things aside I would not hesitate to recommend this to anyone who likes McCarthy, Frazier or similar authors. It is a fantastic piece of writing and worth the minor inconveniences I mentioned to experience a fantastic novelist writing a piece of historically (admittedly, with a great deal of artistic license taken in the interpretation of the characters, especially Bloody Bill himself) based fiction that will stay with them for a long, long time.
December 9, 2014
"Dearest wife, I still kill the enemy where he presents himself to me, but oh my love, I am so sick of killing them!"
Anyone who has read about Bleeding Kansas and the decade following knows that life was cheap and acts of vengeance were commonplace. "Pro-Union" Redleggers and "Pro-Confederate" Bushwhackers took advantage of the broader American crisis to engage in banditry throughout Missouri and Kansas, and in reality, they didn't care which side of the political fence their victims sat.
Still, with the North being the ultimate victor in the American Civil War, the narrative of the "bad guys" found its focus on William Quantrill and his gangs of guerrilla outlaws. Wildwood Boys is James Carlos Blake's attempt at giving the other side fair play, one William T. Anderson ("Bloody Bill"), in particular. Humanizing someone widely considered to be a first-rate monster is no easy task, but Blake's ability to build character and write stunning sentences shows that it might be possible.
That doesn't mean he recasts Anderson's image into that of a saint--history shows us that during this dirty part of the war, there were no true good guys--but he gives the man and his family motivations that readers can sympathize with. Though there is much truth behind Blake's dramatization, he takes poetic license with quite a few aspects, especially Bill's relationship with his younger sister, Josie. I believe Blake was attempting to build greater sympathy for Anderson's actions later in the book, but this particular aspect may turn some readers off.
Most of the novel plants us in William T. Anderson's boots, but the story builds slowly as the first few chapters focus on his parents. Things didn't really pick up until the middle, when William transforms into "Bloody Bill," a killing machine sustained by the power of vengeance.
If you're looking to read about a part of the American Civil War not often fictionalized, this is a great book to immerse yourself in. Just be aware that the story mirrors the violent reality and make sure you read some nonfiction on the subject (I recommend Bloody Bill Anderson: The Short, Savage Life of a Civil War Guerrilla) to get a balanced view.
Anyone who has read about Bleeding Kansas and the decade following knows that life was cheap and acts of vengeance were commonplace. "Pro-Union" Redleggers and "Pro-Confederate" Bushwhackers took advantage of the broader American crisis to engage in banditry throughout Missouri and Kansas, and in reality, they didn't care which side of the political fence their victims sat.
Still, with the North being the ultimate victor in the American Civil War, the narrative of the "bad guys" found its focus on William Quantrill and his gangs of guerrilla outlaws. Wildwood Boys is James Carlos Blake's attempt at giving the other side fair play, one William T. Anderson ("Bloody Bill"), in particular. Humanizing someone widely considered to be a first-rate monster is no easy task, but Blake's ability to build character and write stunning sentences shows that it might be possible.
That doesn't mean he recasts Anderson's image into that of a saint--history shows us that during this dirty part of the war, there were no true good guys--but he gives the man and his family motivations that readers can sympathize with. Though there is much truth behind Blake's dramatization, he takes poetic license with quite a few aspects, especially Bill's relationship with his younger sister, Josie. I believe Blake was attempting to build greater sympathy for Anderson's actions later in the book, but this particular aspect may turn some readers off.
Most of the novel plants us in William T. Anderson's boots, but the story builds slowly as the first few chapters focus on his parents. Things didn't really pick up until the middle, when William transforms into "Bloody Bill," a killing machine sustained by the power of vengeance.
If you're looking to read about a part of the American Civil War not often fictionalized, this is a great book to immerse yourself in. Just be aware that the story mirrors the violent reality and make sure you read some nonfiction on the subject (I recommend Bloody Bill Anderson: The Short, Savage Life of a Civil War Guerrilla) to get a balanced view.
July 14, 2021
This is the first book I've read by James Carlos Blake and I am smitten. From just the first few pages I knew I had found a new favorite author. The writing style is EXCELLENT. Simple, beautiful and moving and true to the time period. Setting and character descriptions were detailed and added plenty of atmosphere and interest to the story. Dialogue was authentic given the time period and character backgrounds. A historical novel that actually reflects history, not only in the story and characters, but in the way the author conveys the story. No frills, no fuss, just straightforward, beautiful prose.
There were some liberties the author took with some of the historical facts, and obviously some readers will find the (as far as history tells us, not true) relationship between Bill and his sister distasteful and off-putting. I thought it worked towards story-building and frankly found it intriguing.
Bloody Bill Anderson was a cold-blooded murderer. He and his men killed many people in horrible ways. As a society, we do not want to humanize people like this, we prefer to look on them as monsters and not see any other qualities or aspects of character that help to define the individual. Bloody Bill's deeds were appalling and atrocious, as were many other men's deeds during this particular time, and the author certainly does not try and paint a different picture, but we do get to see aspects of the humanity behind the monster. I don't think the author set out to romanticize a villain or glorify war, but the melancholy setting, the prolific details of a fascinating and forlorn period in time, the sheer virtuosity of the writing, inadvertently does this. You can't help but fall in love with a monster.
P.S. ~ Doing some research on Bill and some of the other notable figures mentioned (Quantrill, Jesse and Frank James, Bush) as well as Bleeding Kansas and the Border Wars is highly recommended after reading. Will sober you up and help keep too much sympathy for the devil in check.
There were some liberties the author took with some of the historical facts, and obviously some readers will find the (as far as history tells us, not true) relationship between Bill and his sister distasteful and off-putting. I thought it worked towards story-building and frankly found it intriguing.
Bloody Bill Anderson was a cold-blooded murderer. He and his men killed many people in horrible ways. As a society, we do not want to humanize people like this, we prefer to look on them as monsters and not see any other qualities or aspects of character that help to define the individual. Bloody Bill's deeds were appalling and atrocious, as were many other men's deeds during this particular time, and the author certainly does not try and paint a different picture, but we do get to see aspects of the humanity behind the monster. I don't think the author set out to romanticize a villain or glorify war, but the melancholy setting, the prolific details of a fascinating and forlorn period in time, the sheer virtuosity of the writing, inadvertently does this. You can't help but fall in love with a monster.
P.S. ~ Doing some research on Bill and some of the other notable figures mentioned (Quantrill, Jesse and Frank James, Bush) as well as Bleeding Kansas and the Border Wars is highly recommended after reading. Will sober you up and help keep too much sympathy for the devil in check.
September 21, 2016
Almost too much detail,yet he is such a good writer that I wouldn't want to leave anything out.Blake offers a different perspective of the Civil War and its associated violence.It's interesting to read some of the war sites and their opinions of Quantrill,Anderson et al.Lots of nasty people on both sides.
July 25, 2014
I really enjoyed this book in spite of the gruesome tales of Bleeding Kansas years. The writing is sharp and tight...vocabulary is interesting and details vivid. Much is written of Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson, the Burning of Lawrence, Order 11 but the story will never be forgotten once you read this book. Yes, it is a novel but I am trusting the author to have done a good job of research. At the very least, he captures the era and makes the times vividly clear. It is a balanced telling of horrid murder and mayhem on both sides of the war...and it shows good men who engage in killing (thinking they are on the side of right) begin to blur the lines between right and wrong in their own minds.
April 5, 2012
I enjoyed Blake's books set in the '20s and '30s, but was starting to detect a slight repetitive quality in them. This, on the other hand, was what I was waiting for--unapologetically violent and visceral as all get-out, with a masterful sense of time and place. Also really loved the 19th century "combining of two words into one" argot that was rampant; characters were "gutshot" and "throatslit" often under a "moonblack" sky and all. So yeah, Sam Peckinpah by way of Michael Mann. (Also wouldn't be surprised to hear this was on Tarantino's radar, especially with regards to Inglourious Basterds.)
December 9, 2012
This seemed familiar, but then when I got to page 13 and this line
Here's my review from that time:
"He couldn't stand the thought of his arm rotting in Mexican ground, and he regretted not bringing it back to bury in America."I had a strong recollection of it. I checked; I was right. I started this book in 2002.
Here's my review from that time:
5/30/02--Read only about 100 pages. Looked violent & depressing. About a group/family before the Civil War, probably based on the Quantrill Gang in Kansas & Missouri. Well-written but not my kind of subject or plot.Nothing there I can disagree with, and I'm not going to finish it this time either.
December 5, 2015
Wildwood Boys by James Carlos Blake (William Morrow 2000) (Fiction) is an interesting novel of historical fiction about the Missouri - Kansas border wars of the Civil War period. The author tells the quasi-historical tale of William "Bloody Bill" Anderson, who first gained notoriety with William Quantrill of "Quantrill's Raiders" and later became a captain of one of the groups of Confederate irregulars who waged guerrilla warfare against the Union during the early to mid 1860's. The author has constructed quite a tale! My rating: 6.5/10, finished 5/2/13.
January 6, 2015
This is the second Blake novel that I have read. Both books are enjoyable journeys for the reader and not a conclusion to be savored or learned from. In both "Wildwood Boys" and "The Killings of Stanley Ketchel", we know what the end will be. They are both historical novels about men with successful if infamous lives that are ultimately disastrous. Enjoy how Blake takes you there with some very nice, straightforward prose. Perhaps I am more prone to enjoy this novel because the time and place interest me. For those students of the Kansas-Missouri border wars, add a star or two.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews