Maggie's Farm

I read the whole article at the WaPo and have kind of mixed feelings about the reviewer's thoughts. The reviewer seems a bit more jaundiced than does the writer of the book.

(However, from his examples of her prose, I will agree with his critique of her style.)

Yeah, the Gatling Gun is pretty fearsome weapon, but I think we all too often forget how horrible battle has ALWAYS been. I can't really imagine that charging into a massed company of rifleman in the Civil War was somehow less fearsome than Gatling's gun.

The reviewer's comment (partially quoted from the book) "'men, women, and children were like stalks of wheat beneath a scythe,' mowed down with total disregard for their individuality" -- I guess that's the difference between modern genocide and ancient genocide. One supposes that ancient warriors might have better regarded the individuality of the civilians that they cut down or starved in say ... Carthage. (Starvation is much better than Gatling's gun for killing civilians.)

Modern combat is, if anything, less lethal than it has been in the past. (Granted, the reviewer does acknowledge this.)
Consider the great battles of the past where THOUSANDS of men were slain in a few days using nothing but swords or early cannon and firearms. Remember Thermopylae, Plataea, Granicus, Lepanto, etc. (Although I'd opt for neither, an abdominal 5.56 wound is probably a lot more survivable than an abdominal wound inflicted by a Roman short sword.)

Furthermore the reviewer's comment "bore only passing resemblance to the modern machine gun" is somewhat misleading. While modern small arms "machine guns" are not based on Gatling's gun, we do employ a modern version of his weapon to great effect (as noted by NJSoldier, above).