I find this review to be a purposely inaccurate characterization of the book. While this review is furthermore in clear violation of the Goodreads community policies - and the ad hominem assertions found within the text are simply in poor taste - the reviewer also seems fixated upon some pet topics which this individual has cherry-picked from within the last chapters of my book.
The reviewer seems totally unfamiliar with the archival documentation and appears to be attempting to defend deeply-seated popular myths as punctuated by stale interpretations which have appeared in popular historiography. Indeed, the reviewer has seemingly missed the bigger point of the whole discussion.
The reviewer is totally disingenuous in his characterization of my work. Among other key points, not only do I treat Buell's work with respect and full acknowledgement, but I also relied very heavily upon his immediate assistance in the form of the papers he so heroically saved from oblivion. I spent several pages in my book examining Buell's plight, as the task of examining a five star thinker as complex as King truly requires dedication, understanding, and an open mind. The reviewer may wish to reconsider their bombastic assertions on this particular point.
Mine is not just another book about a now largely mythologized world war of the twentieth century. Indeed, the tribal cultures of the American armed services during the first fifty odd years of the twentieth century are not well understood in the twenty-first.
Of course, the reader is free to their opinion - and it is just that, an opinion. Yet, it is deeply perplexing that this anonymous reviewer has chosen to ignore all rules of scholarly decorum in spinning so many unfortunate tales within the context of this forum.
By extension, I am shocked that Goodreads has also failed to implement basic academic standards and generally accepted rules of scholarly decorum by allowing this anonymous reviewer to use this forum as a platform for promulgating such an unnecessary and unhelpful screed.
I am perplexed that long passages are quoted from the book, all of which being cherry-picked for the simpleton's purpose of delivering ad hominem assertions about the author (i.e. me).
Aside from the mischaracterizations of the book in broad terms, the ad hominem commentary which this reviewer has chosen to offer also stands in clear violation of the Goodreads community rules. I am left to wonder about the credibility of a platform, such as Goodreads, that seemingly cannot police itself under its own published guidelines and in accordance with basic rules of scholarly decorum.
The reviewer seems totally unfamiliar with the archival documentation and appears to be attempting to defend deeply-seated popular myths as punctuated by stale interpretations which have appeared in popular historiography. Indeed, the reviewer has seemingly missed the bigger point of the whole discussion.
The reviewer is totally disingenuous in his characterization of my work. Among other key points, not only do I treat Buell's work with respect and full acknowledgement, but I also relied very heavily upon his immediate assistance in the form of the papers he so heroically saved from oblivion. I spent several pages in my book examining Buell's plight, as the task of examining a five star thinker as complex as King truly requires dedication, understanding, and an open mind. The reviewer may wish to reconsider their bombastic assertions on this particular point.
Mine is not just another book about a now largely mythologized world war of the twentieth century. Indeed, the tribal cultures of the American armed services during the first fifty odd years of the twentieth century are not well understood in the twenty-first.
Of course, the reader is free to their opinion - and it is just that, an opinion. Yet, it is deeply perplexing that this anonymous reviewer has chosen to ignore all rules of scholarly decorum in spinning so many unfortunate tales within the context of this forum.
By extension, I am shocked that Goodreads has also failed to implement basic academic standards and generally accepted rules of scholarly decorum by allowing this anonymous reviewer to use this forum as a platform for promulgating such an unnecessary and unhelpful screed.
I am perplexed that long passages are quoted from the book, all of which being cherry-picked for the simpleton's purpose of delivering ad hominem assertions about the author (i.e. me).
Aside from the mischaracterizations of the book in broad terms, the ad hominem commentary which this reviewer has chosen to offer also stands in clear violation of the Goodreads community rules. I am left to wonder about the credibility of a platform, such as Goodreads, that seemingly cannot police itself under its own published guidelines and in accordance with basic rules of scholarly decorum.