Civil War books and authors

Drew Wagenhoffer asked me if I would post some of my experiences in collaborating with other authors. Since it’s an interesting topic, I thought I would accommodate Drew’s request.

By way of background, I have had nine books published of which I am the sole author or editor. The tenth is about to go to the printer. I have had one book published of which I edited a journal that someone else compiled but did not have the expertise or resources to edit properly. I was asked to review this manuscript for publication by Brassey’s, saw the potential, but realized it needed a lot of work. When I made suggestions as to what needed to be done, the publisher asked me if I would undertake the process of editing and annotating the manuscript, and I agreed to do so. Considering that it never started out to be a collaboration, or even a project that I expected to undertake, it worked out quite well. Jean Husby, the compiler, pretty much let me have carte blanche with the editing and with maps and photos, so for all intents and purposes, it wasn’t really even much of a collaboration.

That leaves several other projects wherein active collaborations have taken place. The first, and longest-lived, was the biography of John Buford I’ve been working on with a friend. My friend is a terrific writer. However, he moves slowly, and he has young children and job that requires a lot of travel. Thus, while I’ve had a functional draft of my half together for a long time–it needs polishing, as it was written ten years ago, when my skills weren’t as honed as they are today–it’s been a LONG haul. I don’t talk about it much, as I get tired of answering the inevitable question of when it will be done. The answer is that I have no clue. And I don’t like saying that, so I avoid the topic. If my co-author wasn’t such a good friend and such a good writer, I would be pretty bitter about it. Now, I’m just kind of resigned to it.

Then came my regimental history of the Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry. I had been working on gathering material for it for years. Then, I heard that Ed Longacre had proposed a history of the Lancers to Combined Books. Since I knew that there wouldn’t be a market for two new histories of this unit, I suggested a collaboration to Ed. The deal was that we would primarily use the trove of primary source material that I had accumulated, and I offered to take the more difficult half, covering up to and including Brandy Station (June 9, 1863). Once I was done, I would then ship the box of files to Ed, and he would do his half. I went ahead and wrote my half, and then waited. And waited. And waited. Finally, Ed informed me that due to other commitments, it was going to be another couple of years before he would have time to work on the thing, and said that out of fairness, he thought the right thing to do was to pull out of the project, so as not to hold me up. And with that, it was done. But it meant that I had to do the other half of the book, which I have since done, and it’s now nearly finished, subject to some final searching at the National Archives that is underway as I write this. There’s a trade-off here: on the plus side, the entire book now is done my way, to my standards. On the down side, I had to do the other half, which I hadn’t expected, and it actually proved more difficult to do the second half than did the first. Go figure.

So, those two experiences haven’t been so good. That now brings me to the current collaborations. The first one, with old friends Mike Nugent and J. D. Petruzzi, is a very tactical study of the retreat from Gettysburg. With that, we had very clear delineations of who was responsible for what as the primary author. Then, when those things were done, we circulated drafts among ourselves for input from the others. It worked out very well and went very easily. That book, which is part of Ironclad Publishing’s “The Discovering Civil War America Series”, will be published this year.

The other is the book on Stuart’s ride during the Gettysburg Campaign that I did with JD, and which will be published by Savas-Beatie in June. That one was a dream to do. First, and foremost, JD’s writing style is very, very similar to mine, so it makes blending our work together very easy. Second, it was easy to divide up the work, and we then gave each other input on each other’s work. Third, we have the ability to communicate, and it makes it easy to get over the rough spots. Fourth, neither of us has an ego about this stuff–you can’t be thin-skinned–so we can be blunt and honest with each other. It’s gone so well, in fact, that we have other collaborations in the works: a bio of Alfred Pleasonton, a volume on the Battle of Monocacy for “The Discovering Civil War America Series”, and one on Price’s Missouri Raid, also for the series. I enjoy working with JD a great deal.

I’m also working on a collaboration with Mark Smith and Wade Sokolosky, the authors of Ironclad’s new book on the Battle of Averasboro (which is supposed to ship from the printer today or tomorrow) on a study of the March 8-10, 1865 Battle of Wyse Fork, which is also sometimes known as the Second Battle of Kinston, NC. Mark and Wade will be the primary authors of this one, with some contribution from me. Talk about a neglected battle. 🙂 This one is still in the research phase, and I have yet to even visit the battlefield. That will happen some time this spring, as soon as we can identify a date that works for all of us (Mark has a new job after retiring from the Army, and Wade is a lieutenant colonel on active duty).

At the same time, I continue to do stuff on my own. The Dahlgren bio is strictly my work, and I’ve also signed a contract for a book on John Hunt Morgan’s 1863 Ohio and Indiana Raid that will be exclusively my work. For me, it’s all about finding the right mix.

I hope that answers your question, Drew.

Continue reading

Ethan Rafuse, author of the excellent McClellan’s War: The Failure of Moderation in the War for the Union, posted such an insightful, useful, and educational comment in response to my post on Second Bull Run that I decided to give Ethan the spotlight and make his comment a main post here. Enjoy.

“Pope does deserve better. I do not necessarily agree that he in particular was in over his head in Virginia–after all, what Union general wasn’t before 1864? To be sure, there were many unpleasant aspects of Pope’s personality. But more weight should be given to the fact that the summer of 1862 was perhaps the most complicated time politically, militarily, and personally of the war for the North. I also think Pope is a victim of the fact that we are too quick to blame the generals in the East for military failure; but where is the problem? The generals change both in name and character, from the conservative McClellan to the radical Pope to the squishy Burnside to the aggressive Hooker to the cautious Meade, but there are two constants: inability to achieve decisive success and the character of the civilian leadership. Moreover, it should be noted that, in general, Union military success was usually in equal measure to how far a particular theater was from Washington. This is not, of course, to say that the Union generals did not make errors and create their own friction. They all did, but the “what fools they were” school of Civil War historiography provides an inadequate picture of the war.

But back to Pope. In order to get the job of commanding the Army of Virginia and do it effectively, he really had no choice but to conspicuously demonstrate his sympathy with the anti-McClellan crowd in Washington. In the process, however, he antagonized much of the officer corps and effectively commit himself to conducting operations aggressively, even though caution would have served him better. Sometimes what you got to do to get the job compromises your ability to do the job when you got it. Moreover, he was saddled with subordinates (Sigel, McDowell, Banks, Porter, Heintzelman) who were questionable for varying reasons, facing an Army of Northern Virginia that was truly at its peak, and had a somewhat unclear mission. Was concentrating the Armies of Virginia and Potomac the paramount priority (certainly McClellan and his associates believed this to be the case), or was seizing and creating opportunities to fight and beat the Confederates as Pope promised? And at a critical point in the campaign, when Pope needed guidance on this point and the ability to exchange information with his superiors, his communications were cut. But despite this, he skillfully thwarted Lee’s maneuvers (aided at first by the orders seized at Verdiersville, luck that the Union created by authorizing Buford’s raid) along the Rapidan and Rappahannock, conceived a sound plan for dealing with Jackson’s raid on Manassas Junction, and I think generally made the best decisions he could based on what he knew. True, he left Thoroughfare Gap open to Longstreet, dismissed evidence of Longstreet’s arrival, and developed his plans on 29-30 August based on faulty perceptions of the situation. But leaving Thoroughfare Gap relatively open was not necessarily fatal, and the latter is at least understandable. The officers advising Pope of Longstreet’s presence the morning of 30 August were Porter and Reynolds, both of whom were part of the McClellan crowd and Pope’s suspicion of this clique had been reinforced in recent days by Porter’s actions and warnings from the ever-noxious Kearny. Even then, were it not for McDowell’s awful blunder on the afternoon of 30 August, it seems unlikely that Longstreet’s assault would have achieved as much as it did. And even then, Pope was still able to get back across Bull Run and link up with the two corps of the Army of the Potomac that (after much unseemly foot-dragging by McClellan, another factor that must be taken into account) had finally marched out from the Washington defenses. In the process, Pope inflicted a significant beating on Jackson’s command and Longstreet’s that in the cold light of attritional analysis (which makes it possible to even see a silver lining in the Fredericksburg debacle), was worth something to the Union cause.

One of Pope’s problems in history and memory, as I argue in a footnote in McClellan’s War, is that the Radical Republicans did not make the kind of effort to rehabilitate him that they would for Fremont and Hooker–in part because they found a new hero in the latter. As Hennessy pointed out in his incomparable book, Second Manassas was, next to Gettysburg, perhaps the most controversial campaign during the decades after the war. I do not think it is fair to say that Second Manassas has not generated recent interest or does not receive respect; I just think Hennessy did such an outstanding job that there has been no point revisiting it in a major way–although Joseph Harsh does so superbly in Confederate Tide Rising.”

Kudos to Ethan for such an excellent, educational, and insightful post that answers a lot of questions about why the Second Bull Run Campaign so often seems to get short shrift. Thanks for writing, Ethan.

Continue reading

In the “blowing my own horn” category of things (which is something that I neither like doing, nor is it something that I am particularly comfortable doing)…..

Ted Savas called me this afternoon to let me know that my forthcoming book on the Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads has been chosen as an Alternate Selection by the History Book Club. None of my titles have ever had such an honor bestowed upon them previously. Needless to say, I was blown away when Ted told me the news. I was excited but humbled all at the same time. The responses that my work seems to get never cease to flatter and amaze me.

Thanks again to everyone who reads my work and spends their hard-earned money buying my books.

Continue reading

Some of you might recall my mentioning that, while whiling away the hours in Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Parking Lot….oops, Airport…on our way home from California after Thanksgiving, that I had begun reading a joint biography of George S. Patton, Jr. and Erwin Rommel. The book is titled Patton and Rommel: Men of War in the Twentieth Century by a fellow named Dennis Showalter. Showalter is the former head of the Society for Military History, and is a professor of history at Colorado College who has written several books and has a long resume. He is an expert on the Prussian military establishment, and is well-qualified, in particular, to address the life of the Desert Fox.

Given the author’s pedigree and the fascinating subject, I had very high expectations for this book. Having finally finished it last night, I unfortunately am left with the conclusion that this book is really a mixed bag. Although it is obviously not a Civil War book, I mention it because the book’s overall quality is spoiled by three of my biggest complaints: atrocious production values, not a single photograph, and not a single map.

Rommel performed some really remarkable deeds in the Tirolean Alps of Italy during World War I. Showalter spends a lot of ink and a lot pages describing these episodes in detail, but there is not a single maps. Personally, I had almost no familiarity with this theater of World War I, and REALLY would have liked to have seen some decent maps that portrayed these events to help me to understand them. Likewise, I would have liked to have seen maps of Rommel’s role in the invasion of France in 1939, and in North Africa during his tenure as commander of the Afrika Korps.

Likewise, I would have liked to have seen maps of Patton’s campaign in North Africa, his role in the invasion of Sicily, and finally of the dash across France, including his remarkable movement of a major portion of his Third Army to come to the aid of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944. Again, I was left to try to recall, from memory, the geography of Europe and of Patton’s movements, and while my memory is pretty good, it’s not THAT good.

In addition, the only two photographs are images of Patton and Rommel that appear on the dust jacket to the book. There is not a single photo anywhere in the book, even though images of both of these military giants abound. There are plenty to go around, but either the author or the publisher, or, perhaps, both, dropped the ball, and left them out altogether.

Thus, while I think that the book was well-done–it’s pretty well researched, and written in a readable, conversational style that draws solid conclusions–I would have been significantly more impressed by, and ultimately more favorably inclined to recommend it to other readers, if it had contained good maps and good illustrations on top of the decent material that constitutes the book.

It’s a shame. It could have been a really great book, but without the inclusion of maps and illustrations, I can’t say that it is. Without maps and illustrations, it is, at best, a decent read that is ultimately disappointing. I hate that.

Another thing that really surprised me was that this book is so chock-full of typos, grammatical errors, and other screw-ups as to make it very difficult to read. The production values for the entire book are absolutely atrocious. How a book got into print with this many typos and grammatical errors mystifies me, especially when a distinguished academic historian is the author. Apparently, the publisher’s editorial/proofreading staff took that week off, because there simply is no evidence that they did their job. It’s sad, because these types of things really distract the reader and really harm the overall credibility of the book.

So, to conclude, this book sort of hits the grand slam of all of the things that I hate about books. That I actually finished it, given that fact, is really pretty remarkable.

Continue reading

Paul Taylor left me a most insightful comment on his experience with McFarland Publishing. McFarland published Paul’s recent regimental history of the 26th New York Volunteer Infantry.

I was just looking through McFarland’s list of titles, and there is some REALLY interesting stuff there. The company bills itself as a “publisher of reference and scholarly books,” and it shows. As Paul pointed out in his comment, they have published a number of very useful regimental histories, as well as some interestng campaign studies. I just noticed that they have what appears to be a major scholarly work on the Battle of Brandy Station slated for 2006 that I was previously unaware of, and which looks interesting.

They also have two books listed in their list of forthcoming titles by Robert P. Broadwater, whose stinker on the Battle of Bentonville has been the subject of some of my ranting here. It’s an absolutely atrocious book, so I have no reason to think that these two will be any better, either.

Here’s the thing. McFarland has very little in the way of marketing; libraries seem to be their primary niche. The following statement from the company’s website really struck me about their marketing: “McFarland successfully sells directly to individuals. Specialists, professionals and enthusiasts form an important market for many kinds of books. For applicable books, college classroom adoptions play a role in sales. Most major online book retailers carry McFarland books—you may wish to keep a watch on your book’s listings. Chain book retailers will carry McFarland books in their system for special order, but are unlikely to stock books in stores (the same applies to the majority of our academic publisher peers). Specialty bookshops, on the other hand, can make suitable arrangements with McFarland. We welcome sales tips from authors for the latter. If you know of a mail-order distributor, museum shop, specialty bookshop, or internet-based book dealer that handles a specialized line, please provide addresses.” In other words, unless you’re willing to go and out and sell the hell out of your book by yourself, you’re pretty much out of luck. At least some university presses do a decent job of marketing.

Another issue, as Paul quite correctly points out, is that McFarland’s primary market sector is libraries, meaning that pricing is less of a concern than with normal commercial publishing houses. Consequently, most of their titles run in the range of $45-65 or so, and I am concerned that the price will scare off most potential buyers. This is basically a wash, irrespective of whether McFarland does the book or a university press does–university presses have the same pricing issues. There’s little enough demand for this book, so it’s something to be seriously concerned about.

Finally, there is the issue of timing. As I have pointed out here previously, university presses take forever to get stuff out. I have no idea whether McFarland does. So, the issue is how to handle this trade-off.

So, there’s a real trade-off here. They do some really good books that might not otherwise find a publisher, but outside of libraries, their marketing is pretty much non-existent. Talk about a Hobson’s choice….

I’m a little over one-third of the way through my new biography of Ulric Dahlgren. I went into this project knowing that it would be no small challenge to find the appropriate publisher for this work. Like so much of what I do, it’s a topic that interests me and that I find compelling, so I tackled it. Because I tend to choose topics that nobody else has, it means that the market is completely untested. And let’s face it–this book is not going to make the New York Times best seller list any time in my lifetime. So, I have to find a publisher for it, and it looks like my choices are a university press or McFarland. Neither excites me much, but I’m enough of a realist to know that there aren’t too many other options out there. So, let me ask my gentle readers your opinion–and you will be part of an active decision on where to shop this manuscript–where should I pitch this thing?

I look forward to your feedback, and thank you to Paul Taylor for inspiring this particular post.

Continue reading

I have a great love for regimental histories. I buy a lot of them. Mostly, I need them for my work, but I really enjoy having them around. I like knowing what specific units did during the course of their careers, and I also find having the rosters, etc., useful. It really puts a human face on the men who fought the Civil War.

The vast majority of regimental histories were written in the thirty-five years between the end of the war and the end of the Nineteenth Century. Most of them were written by veterans of their units, and they were primarily written for the men of those particular regiments as a chronicle of their service during the war. Often, those original regimental histories were written by the regimental chaplains. The best ones include both a narrative of the regiment’s service as well as anecdotal material by the soldiers who served in the unit. They’re often filled with photos of the members of the unit. One of the best I’ve ever seen is the history of the 10th New York Cavalry, which includes photos of the members of the regiment, an excellent narrative, a complete roster, and lots of good anecdotal stuff.

One of the worst, by contrast, was that of the 3rd Indiana Cavalry. The 3rd Indiana is an unusual regiment. Half of it served with the Army of the Potomac, while the other half served in the Western Theatre. It made it difficult to document the regiment’s service, and the regimental history, by a fellow named William N. Pickrell, and published in the first decade of the Twentieth Century, doesn’t consist of much besides reports included in the Official Records. It is, for the most part, useless. Even though it’s incredibly rare, it’s okay, because it has little value.

So, here’s the problem. The old books, which were not printed with acid-free pape, tend to be extremely brittle and very fragile. The bindings often are delicate and falling apart. So, while I need the material, I’m afraid to use the books because they’re investments and I’m afraid of damaging them. Consequently, I’ve found a solution. I buy almost exclusively reprints, unless I find a great deal on a first edition, or it’s one that has special meaning to me (I own two of the 750 copies of the 1868 regimental history of the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry published, including the personal copy of the author, Chaplain Samuel L. Gracey). The reprints are inexpensive enough that it doesn’t much matter if I mess one up, or if I write in it. Plus, I can usually buy three or four reprints for the price of one first edition. From a practicality standpoint, that’s a no-brainer for me.

There are three great sources for reprints. My current favorite is Ward House Books, a division of Higginson Books. They do replica reprints of the original editions, and are very faithful reprints. They’re inexpensive, no frills books–they’re done with simple library bindings–done print-on-demand, so it takes 3-4 weeks to get them when you place an order. Once or so a year, they have a significant sale with a 25% discount. They have some really rare titles–such as the history of the 1st New York Dragoons, which is one of the most rare of all of the regimental histories–and provide an invaluable service.

Then, there’s Jim McLean’s Butternut and Blue of Baltimore, which has done replica reprints of numerous Union and Confederate regimental histories that cannot be found anywhere else. Jim has done some excellent and very rare books such of Lt. George W. Beale’s A Lieutenant of Cavalry in Lee’s Army.

Finally, there’s Morningside House of Dayton, Ohio. This is a mixed bag at best. On one hand Morningside has done some fabulous books that cannot be found anywhere else, such as Dr. Abner Hard’s regimental history of the 8th Illinois Cavalry. Again, the books are no-frills and don’t have dust jackets. They’re functional but certainly not pretty. On the other hand, if you buy from Morningside, it means that you have to deal with the owner of the company, who is proud to be called an S.O.B. He is his company’s own worst enemy, which is a shame, because he was the trailblazer for the replica reprint business.

My own companies, first VanBerg Publishing, and then its successor, Ironclad Publishing, have done some high quality reprints of some very rare regimental histories–the Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry, the 9th Massachusetts Battery, the 9th New York Volunteer Infantry, and the 124th New York Volunteer Infantry. The problem is that we have found that these books don’t move quickly and that it’s very difficult for us to make back the money that we invest in them in anything close to a reasonable amount of time. Consequently, we made a concerted business decision to stop doing regimental histories about two years ago, and will no longer be doing them, simply because we find that they’re not a good investment for us.

Finally, there are some pretty good modern regimental histories being published, such as Rod Gragg’s study of the 26th North Carolina Infantry, as well as other good recent titles.

A major portion of my library is devoted to regimental histories. One can never have too many.

Continue reading

I am occasionally asked what I look for when I evaluate new books to see whether I might want to buy them. I have a pretty well established routine that I follow.

The first thing that I do is to look at the bibliography. I want to know what sources that author has used in drawing his or her conclusions. Did the author use almost all secondary sources? Did the author use a mix of primary and secondary sources? Within the primary sources, what’s the mix of published vs. manuscript materials? The thing that I’m looking for most of all is whether the author has done his or her homework. That’s why I will not even purchase a new book if it doesn’t have a bibliography. That was the very first thing that I noticed about Carhart’s festering pile of crap. If the book passes that test, then we move to the next test.

I will then see what maps and illustrations are included. I’ve already made my thoughts on this particular topic known, and won’t repeat them here. What I look for here is: are there maps? If so, are they any good? And what illustrations has the author used? Any that are new or different? Or are the same old tired ones that everyone uses?

If the book passes the map/illustration test, then I look at the notes to see how they look. I look to see whether they’re clear and comprehensive and whether they’re useful to me as the reader. If they aren’t, then I’m done. If they are, then we go to the final test.

The final test is to pick a random passage and read it, and see how the prose/editing is. If it’s good, and all other tests have been passed, then it’s time to crack open my wallet. If not, then it goes back on the shelf, and I move on.

Of course, all of this can go right out the window if the book seems to be something that’s pertinent to my work and that I need for something I’m working on. When this little gem came out, I bought it immediately, sight unseen, because my book on East Cavalry Field was being copyedited, and I had to know whether I had been trumped. Fortunately, it turned out to be a waste of about $20, to my great relief, but this is a book that would not have made it past the very first test otherwise.

My point in all of this is that the decision to buy a book is usually one that I spend a fair amount of time and energy in making, and I almost never buy on the spur of the moment or on an impulse. There are times when that’s a good thing, but there are also times when it’s not.

Continue reading

As some of you know, I’ve been working on a new regimental history of the Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry, also known as Rush’s Lancers, for more than a decade. The actual writing has taken over six years of working on it on and off, typically more on when the next new batch of information appears. The manuscript is largely complete; all that remains to be done on the manuscript side is to complete the review of a few Record Groups at the National Archives, and incorporate any pertinent material from those Record Groups. The gathering of that material is underway, and should be completed by March 1.

This book was to be a joint project between Ed Longacre and me. I was to do the first half of the war, and Ed the second half. Ed, however, had too much on his plate and was unable to do his half in anything close to a timely fashion for the original contract that we had, which was with Combined Books. Ed backed out of the project, and then Combined was sold to DaCapo. There was no way that I was going to have DaCapo publish this book, so I terminated the contract, repaid the miniscule advance that I had received (a whopping $250.00), and was left to finish it, and find a publisher for it, on my own.

I had always contemplated the inclusion of a roster of the regiment with the new regimental history. However, this particular unit had more than 1500 men pass through its ranks over the course of its service, and compiling a new roster has turned out to be a monumental–and cost prohibitive–task. Given the number of men, it would also add 50-75 pages to the book and would increase the cost significantly. Considering that I already have about 100 illustrations and about 15 maps for this project, adding that much material will significantly increase cost, which, in turn, will significantly increase the retail price.

Just a week ago, after a lot of contemplation and searching for the right publisher for my labor of love, I signed a contract for the book with Westholme Publishing of Yardley, PA, a suburb of Philadelphia, to publish the book. The owner of the company, Bruce Franklin, has impeccable credentials–he is descended from both Benjamin Franklin and Wade Hampton, and has been in university press publishing. Bruce recently published Joe Bilby’s excellent new book on the history of repeating weapons in the Civil War, which really impressed me. I am quite confident that Bruce will do an excellent job on the book, and he’s pretty much given me carte blanche on illustrations and maps. Of the illustrations, I have many that have never been published before, and which come from private collections. After all of these years of work, I’m really excited about it.

Another big selling point for having Westholme publish the book is that Bruce is willing to handle the indexing, meaning that it is not my responsibility in any fashion. Those who read my rants on a regular basis know my feelings on that subject, so it’s a very valuable thing for me to have him handle it. 🙂

I recently introduced regular reader and fellow lawyer Russ Bonds to Bruce, and Bruce has apparently offered Russ a contract for his first book, which is a detailed telling of the story of the Great Locomotive Chase.

The problem, however, is that after much discussion and gnashing of teeth, I have had to abandon the idea of including the roster in the book. It’s just not possible to include the roster, keep the book affordable, and get it out in a timely fashion. Although I would love to include it, it would make it impossible to include everything else that I want, and when push came to shove, the maps and photos were more important to me than was the roster. Bruce came up with a great idea–the roster will be available on his website as a downloadable PDF file, and anyone who wants it will be able to get it for free. That’s a compromise that I can live with.

At the same time, it was an extremely difficult choice, and one that I never expected to have to make. I am comfortable with the choice that I made. In a perfect world, the roster would also be included, but I understand the economics of the thing, and I also understand compromise. When it came down to making a decision, I decided that it was more important to publish the book as I want it to be without the roster than to include the roster and have to compromise on the illustrations and maps.

Continue reading

Russ Bonds, fellow lawyer and Civil War historian, has been working on his first book. I’ve been trying to give Russ tidbits of guidance along the way. Today, I got the following question from Russ: “As a writer, what do you do about asking others to read and comment on your manuscript? I often see authors thanking colleagues, professors, friends, etc. in their acknowledgements for reading the manuscript and ‘saving them from many errors.’ To me, there are two issues here–seeking expert advice on your manuscript to be sure it’s technically, militarily and factually accurate; and seeking the opinions of ‘lay’ readers (i.e., wives, friends, non-Civil War types) to be sure the thing is readable and interesting. However, I believe that you can get into trouble letting people shape what you’re trying to do; and/or letting too many cooks stir the pot, as it were. So, how do you approach getting comments on your manuscripts? Any thoughts?” I answered Russ privately, and then thought that this might be a good topic for a blog entry.

The answer to these questions is really quite important to understanding part of the process that goes into the creation of a book. As I told Russ, the process of having somebody else review a manuscript is absolutely essential to any book manuscript. There are lots of reasons why.

As the author, I know what it’s supposed to say, but by the time that I’ve finished writing the thing and then revising it, I’ve read it so many times that I just can’t see anything anymore. You begin to see what it’s supposed to say, not what it really says. Consequently, there will inevitably be things wrong with it that I just can’t see or find anymore because I’m too close to the manuscript. Therefore, having an independent reader review the manuscript for me is important for two primary reasons.

First, an independent reader can catch factual errors–we all make them, often stupid, careless, and terribly embarrassing. If they get caught, then I only have to be embarrassed that I made a stupid mistake with one person instead of with a book that can’t be easily changed. I wish I could remember just how many of these stupid mistakes I’ve made–and have had friends catch–over the years. I do know this–I would be terribly embarrassed if any of them ever made it into print.

Second, an independent reader, and especially an independent reader with some good writing skills, can point out the massive, Faulknerian run-on sentences that look great to me, but which really need to be broken up into three or four different sentences that are not Faulknerian in nature. Again, I’ve had lots of instances where readers have saved me from serious grammatical faux pas.

I’m very fortunate that I have five or six people who regularly read my work for me and give me lots of good input, helping with the factual glitches and with the ugly passive constructions that need to be livened up. We all regularly pass work between us, reading and reviewing each other’s work, and giving each other good feedback that ultimately makes our work better.

At the same time, it’s very important to make sure that the readers understand that I, as the author, retain the discretion to decide which suggested revisions actually get made and which don’t. Sometimes, a suggestion is just plain wrong, or I don’t like it, and I always retain the discretion to decide which to use.

Finally, it’s critical that the writer not have an ego about this stuff. You are going to make mistakes. We all do, and it is inevitable. Not one of us writes perfect, completely publishable work without the benefit of an editor. You’ve asked that person to give their time and effort to reviewing your work. You’ve obviously done so for a reason–you respect that person, and you WANTED that person to give you input into your manuscript. Therefore, when you get that feedback, you’d better be prepared for it, and you’d better not blow a gasket if that feedback suggests a lot of revisions, and that feedback points out errors. Just suck it up, make the changes, and be grateful to the person who read it for you.

So, Russ, the answer is yes, having others review my work for accuracy and to avoid those ugly Faulknerian constructions is an absolutely crucial part of the process. Embrace it. Live it. Love it.

Continue reading

Today, I’d like to engage in a bit of shameless self-promotion….

I’m pleased to announce the release date of my new book, which is the first detailed tactical study of the March 10, 1865 Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads, fought on the grounds of what is today Fort Bragg, near Fayetteville, NC. In this important action, Lt. Gen. Wade Hampton, commanding Wheeler’s Cavalry Corps and Maj. Gen. Matthew C. Butler’s cavalry division from the Army of Northern Virginia, launched a stunning dawn surprise attack on Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick’s sleeping camp. Kilpatrick was nearly captured, and had to beat feet to safety in swamp, clad in only his nightshirt in what has become known as “Kilpatrick’s Shirt-Tail Skedaddle”. Kilpatrick rallied his troops and eventually recaptured his camp. After four hours of brutal fighting and heavy losses on both sides, Hampton broke off and withdrew.

However, the importance of this battle does not end there. As a result of the near catastrophic drubbing that he took, Kilpatrick’s advance was halted for an entire day. This extra day permitted Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee to evacuate his infantry corps from Fayetteville unmolested and to burn the important Clarendon Bridge over the Cape Fear River. That act, in turn, halted Sherman’s army in Fayetteville for several days until pontoons could be brought up and the river spanned.

Hardee then conducted a brilliant defense at depth at Averasboro on March 16, again halting Sherman, and then slipped away. These events gave Joseph E. Johnston just enough time to cobble together an army at Smithfield. Implementing a terrific battle plan by Hampton, Johnston attacked Sherman at Bentonville on March 19, and nearly defeated half of Sherman’s army in detail.

The importance of Monroe’s Crossroads has never really been placed in its proper context before. Given that the battlefield itself is nestled squarely in the middle of the 82nd Airborne’s drop zones at Fort Bragg, only a handful of folks get to see this pristine little gem per year. I spent about 3 years pulling the research together, stomping the ground, and developing my interpretation of these events. There are four appendices, including a listing of all identified casualties of the battle.

The book is titled _The Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads and the Civil War’s Last Campaign_. The book features about 50 illustrations, including several that have never been published before, and about 25 excellent maps. The book also includes a foreword by Mark L. Bradley, the foremost scholar of Sherman’s Carolinas Campaign. It’s being published by Savas-Beatie, LLC and should be available on January 31, 2006. The book will be approximately 325 pages long, and will retail for $32.95.

Those interested in reserving a signed copy can do so on the Savas-Beatie web site.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming….

Continue reading