Journal #25 RBC Reviews

I read a couple interesting critical reviews of The Red Badge of Courage. Both reviews shared many interesting points about the book and its author, Stephen Crane. It was interesting to see what the British critics thought of the novel as well as american critics. One former British Gneral praised the story for its format of being described by a private instead of a general. When a story is seen through the eyes of a general, the focus is on troop movements, casualties, individual victories of the units. When seen from a private's point of view, the reader is able to see the individual battles and the intensity of them. Whereas that experience is lost when seen from a general. We are able to see Henry's emotions and ponder his reactions and the reasons why he reacted this way.

I can agree with this because i read a story about the Battle of Waterloo which was fought between The Duke of wellington and napolean (British and allies vs. French). The book described the overall statistics of each individual skirmish, such as cavalry charges and infantry attacks. It sort of described what the troops were experiencing but for the most part it was nothing like how The Red badge of Courage did so. I think The Red Badge of Courage did an excellent job mixing up the view points expressed in combat compared to other writers.

The critics also pointed out how Stephen Crane did a great job writing about battle. Especially since he had never fought in any battles, and he was not even born during the civil war. Yet, he was still able to write about a battle and was very accurate describing what was happening and did a great job describing what the soldiers were experiencing. I agree with them because I feel he had done a great job describing war without ever having experienced a battle or war. He exceeded expectations of normal standards with this book because he does a very good job describing a battle in a war that he had never even been alive during.