Scan barcode
A review by votesforwomen
The Red Badge of Courage and Selected Short Fiction by Stephen Crane
1.0
Normally I reserve one star ratings for books I DNF'd.
This, being a school book, is an exception. However, I cannot tell you how much I hated it.
The writing style is atrocious. I have never seen such overuse of the past participle in all my life. Everything was "were hanging, was running, was looking, was talking." EVERYTHING. It got so old so fast. The similes are awful (I found only one that made me say "Wow, that's a good simile!") and the rest of it...ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
The one thing that made this book at all enjoyable was the young lieutenant. All he did was swear (the words weren't written out) but he was hilarious and stupid while still being brave on the battlefield.
But that guy isn't enough to take this book up to two stars for me. No, my biggest problem is with the protagonist and the representation.
Henry Fleming, our "hero," is the most irritating jerk of a protagonist I have ever read. I have never in my life wished that an MC would die more. I still can't believe he came through the book completely unscathed. He lied, he mistreated his mother, he didn't care about his fellows, he ran away from the fight, he let himself get hit over the head by one of his OWN men and told his regiment he was valiantly shot by a rebel, he schemes to use a package given to him by his friend (who trusts him and likes him) as leverage AGAINST said friend, despite the fact that this friend is one of the only likeable characters in the book. And then about halfway through he has a sudden change in heart and suddenly thinks of himself as a hero. He leads the charges. He carries the colors. He holds his regiment. AND I DON'T GET IT!
This doesn't even start to deal with how problematic this soldier representation is. Stephen Crane, when I looked it up, was out to write a "psychological picture of fear", but he went overboard. So, so overboard. The soldiers in this book are cowards and fearful, running away when it gets to be too hard and so often refusing to fight. They make fun of each other. They stab each other in the back. And sure, maybe some soldiers are like that, but I've seen enough Civil War movies and read enough books about it (as well as any other war, come on) to know that soldiers are more often than not heroes. They're not perfect, they're not superhuman, but they're selfless and brave. And this book made me angry because it portrayed the entire Union army as a bunch of useless, cowardly idiots.
I don't recommend this book to anyone. I'm not really sure why it became a classic. But oh well. Now I've read it, and hopefully I never have to think about it again.
This, being a school book, is an exception. However, I cannot tell you how much I hated it.
The writing style is atrocious. I have never seen such overuse of the past participle in all my life. Everything was "were hanging, was running, was looking, was talking." EVERYTHING. It got so old so fast. The similes are awful (I found only one that made me say "Wow, that's a good simile!") and the rest of it...ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
The one thing that made this book at all enjoyable was the young lieutenant. All he did was swear (the words weren't written out) but he was hilarious and stupid while still being brave on the battlefield.
But that guy isn't enough to take this book up to two stars for me. No, my biggest problem is with the protagonist and the representation.
Henry Fleming, our "hero," is the most irritating jerk of a protagonist I have ever read. I have never in my life wished that an MC would die more. I still can't believe he came through the book completely unscathed. He lied, he mistreated his mother, he didn't care about his fellows, he ran away from the fight, he let himself get hit over the head by one of his OWN men and told his regiment he was valiantly shot by a rebel, he schemes to use a package given to him by his friend (who trusts him and likes him) as leverage AGAINST said friend, despite the fact that this friend is one of the only likeable characters in the book. And then about halfway through he has a sudden change in heart and suddenly thinks of himself as a hero. He leads the charges. He carries the colors. He holds his regiment. AND I DON'T GET IT!
This doesn't even start to deal with how problematic this soldier representation is. Stephen Crane, when I looked it up, was out to write a "psychological picture of fear", but he went overboard. So, so overboard. The soldiers in this book are cowards and fearful, running away when it gets to be too hard and so often refusing to fight. They make fun of each other. They stab each other in the back. And sure, maybe some soldiers are like that, but I've seen enough Civil War movies and read enough books about it (as well as any other war, come on) to know that soldiers are more often than not heroes. They're not perfect, they're not superhuman, but they're selfless and brave. And this book made me angry because it portrayed the entire Union army as a bunch of useless, cowardly idiots.
I don't recommend this book to anyone. I'm not really sure why it became a classic. But oh well. Now I've read it, and hopefully I never have to think about it again.