James DiEugenio Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) The book is so needlessly and pretentiously long, it took awhile to get through it: http://www.ctka.net/2016/CaufieldPart1.html http://www.ctka.net/2016/CaufieldPart2.html And to put it mildly it wasn't worth the slog. I feel like filing a lawsuit for mental torture. What a farce. Edited March 5, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Thank you so much for the extensive time you put into this review. I couldn't read it - 20 pages in I realized Caulfield had no organizational skills and no editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 Paul, 20 pages, wow that has to be some kind of record. Since, I was reviewing it and paid for it, I had to read the whole thing. BTW, the only JFK book I ever bought, or borrowed from a library, and could not finish was Weisberg's Post Mortem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Last year I read a book about "the Iceman" ("The Man in the Ice: The Discovery of a 5,000-Year-Old Body Reveals the Secrets of the Stone Age" by Konrad Spindler).It is a largish, partly very tedious and seemingly partly irrelevant book by one of the archaeologists studying the case who apparently is more accomplished in writing scientific papers than "popular" books.If I had not been very interested in the subject matter I would not have read as much of it as I did. I'm not one to readily throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think Konrads' book is essential reading re the Iceman and the Middle European Stone Age._________________I've followed Pauls' treatement of Dr Caulfields' book and now I've read part of Jims' review. Unfortunately both fall short of the objective treatment that I hope for. It'll be interesting to see what Ernie has to say.However,as a student of the case, I do think that reading the book and what Jim and Paul have to say, plus any future reviews, it will be possible to make my own mind up about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 John: Please read the whole review before you pass judgment on it. Second, Ernie is not an authority on the JFK case. And he freely admits that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 John - that's true. Ernie is an expert on FBI files, and generally on right wing movements. But not on JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I appreciate the input. I still wouldn't let size of book or quality of pen man ship stand in the way. I read the second part and appreciated the conclusion. That's close to what I'd say is balanced. Later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 13, 2016 Author Share Posted March 13, 2016 BTW, I did include a link to Ernie's fine page on Harry Dean. Boy, I don't know anyone who had done as much archival work on FBI files as Ernie. That guy deserves a medal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now