The reviewer appreciates the historical significance of 'Band of Brothers' but criticizes Stephen Ambrose's writing style, finding it blunt and poorly edited. They acknowledge the book's value in preserving the stories of ordinary soldiers but ultimately find the prose lacking in grace and elegance.
The reviewer begins by expressing their admiration for the historical importance of 'Band of Brothers,' particularly in capturing the experiences of ordinary soldiers during World War II. They note that Stephen Ambrose's work is significant in preserving these stories as the living memory of the war fades. However, the reviewer is critical of Ambrose's writing style, describing it as blunt, ugly, and disjointed. They mention specific issues with grammar and editing, and express disappointment that the prose lacks the grace and elegance found in the works of other historians like Walter Lord and Cornelius Ryan. Despite the book's historical value, the reviewer finds the reading experience lacking due to these stylistic shortcomings.
Quick quotes
I don’t like Stephen Ambrose.
I think he’s a crap writer.
Ambrose’s shortcomings as a writer are painfully obvious.