Novel 1981 - Comstock Lode (V5.0)
“My mother’s family came over about 1638 from England and the ancestry is mostly French, some Irish, little spots of English and Cornish scattered here and there. They came over to Boston but then they helped found the town of North Hampton, New Hampshire, and the Dearborns were located there. Then one of them moved west to Pennsylvania and was located in the area of the Susquehanna River. Then my grandfather, who was born there, came out west to Illinois. He was in the army during the Civil War and then was in the Indian wars following that and then came to settle in North Dakota.
Q: And your father’s family?
My father’s family settled in Canada and we don’t know exactly how long they were in Canada, but apparently for a very long time. The best information we can get is that they settled in the 1600’s. They were there very early and then my father’s father, my grandfather, came down from Canada to fight in the Union Army in the Civil War. It was the only fight going on at the time an...d he wanted to get some action, so he came down and fought through the war as a sharpshooter; and in those days, in return for their work in the war, instead of getting a bonus like they did in World War I, you know, they gave them land.MoreLess
Q: And your father’s family?
My father’s family settled in Canada and we don’t know exactly how long they were in Canada, but apparently for a very long time. The best information we can get is that they settled in the 1600’s. They were there very early and then my father’s father, my grandfather, came down from Canada to fight in the Union Army in the Civil War. It was the only fight going on at the time an...d he wanted to get some action, so he came down and fought through the war as a sharpshooter; and in those days, in return for their work in the war, instead of getting a bonus like they did in World War I, you know, they gave them land.MoreLess
Guest 2 years ago
This was a very good book, I think Comstock is his best book. Yet he spoils uit with one of his unbelievable yarns. In the interview at the end of the book he days that Bill Tilghman came to visit his brother and he was so surprised as he was in the middle of reading his book "The Passing of The Outlaws". and they'd made a film of it....WelL.....L.'Amour was born in 1908, the film made in 1915. and Old Bill died in 1925 after being shot.. So how did Louis get to see this kindly old "white Haired" man. Very camped for time I'd say.
Oh yes, Old Bill NEVER wrote his memoirs (that Louis was in the middle of "reading" when Old William called at the hotel room to see Louis brother ...Hmm..) and the film was made from his "reminiscences" being related by him. He was the actual star, and part owner of the film company, .....and most of it was imaginary and never happened.
So where does that leave L'Amour...A "storyteller", as he likes to describe himself, but not a particularly truthful one.
Which is why I like Comstock, it has much legitimate history in it, and stretches the truth not nearly as much as his other dreary, tiresome yarns, which tell us over and over, that "Navarro made this trail in 1542, and Montana travelled this route in 1501, and before Columbus, Uncle Tom Cobbely rode his mule along the Baloney trail from Texas to the Arctic and back. etc. ad nauseam.
Nevertheless, Louis' relation of his ancestry makes interesting reading, and is astonishing as to how he was able to know all this, back to 1600 ON BOTH SIDES, of his family, no less...
Another Hmm...!! Of course he's a "storyteller" which is often a euphemism for "liar". I still haven't found his boxing record in any reputable boxing list or site . BoxRec, the vest one, doesn't knw his at all even under his assumed boxing name. Ah well......
Guest 7 months ago
Lamour makes quite a few mistakes . It sems to me that he detailes every item in his supposed life story, even a 2-3 mont stint at some simple work done 50 years ago. I don't believ half of it and alsthugh I can detail my own lif to a very fine degree, and have a 159 IQ, I can't recall everything, unless I'm reminded by someone then it usually bit not always comes back to me.The Sacket family saga began in the LATE 16th century, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, NOT the 14th. Yet Lamour agrees with the questioner.
This shows it's all a put up, carefully crafted, edited many times Yarn.
Well as he says , he'
s a story telly, in other words a born liar, includinghis "boxing" career. That forst fight with the lighter guy who'd had 214 fights. Now how did he know this, as there is not a single record of that guy in any boxing recoding site. NONE. The only boxer with the same second name had 30 fights of which he lost 9. And the purported dates do NOT match.
And NO Tex Burns is recorded anywhere.
In his books every one seems to have a fight. Tiresomely each the very same, the same punches the same KDs the same little pebbles toat roll under the hero's foot, and the fact that even a modern boxer with vastly more skills, who's get a 50th of the punishment he denotes, would be a hospital caee within 3 minutes. I write that very seriously as I have been a many year boxer myself, and have seen on video nearly every fight of importance for the past 50 years. I have over 160 2 hour tapes crammed with boxing .
Guest 7 months ago
Another very loose Lamour error. Every schoolkid knows that Slavery importations were banned in the US since 1808 Not 1820 as Lamour carelessly motes.This guy, this storyteller should at least get his dates right or else stope quoting them.
Write Review:
Guest
Read Also
8 / 10
User Reviews: