Excellent points, and I thank you for making them. I guess the point is that that’s why there are different flavors of ice cream, so everyone can get what they want.

Eric

Gentlemen. I have enjoyed browsing this discussion… I find it bothersome that some people feel the need to put their own requirements on what a writer (any writer) should and shouldn’t write, what topics they should and shouldn’t focus on, and what interests they should or shouldn’t pursue. I am NOT in any way suggesting that the readers (and/or) peers of historians and authors opinions do not matter – BUT with the exception of your publisher, editor, agent, and mom – their personal demands are somewhat unmerited when selecting material (IMO).

There are more than enough quality writers, historians and bloggers out there – to more than compensate for one another’s so called “shortcomings” (topic-wise). I believe that a writer’s style, and passion for the subject SHOULD be a component of their work. Academic historians (of which I do not fit) have placed so much emphasis on the writing of “unbiased” and “politically-correct” material that the whole genre is in serious risk of becoming “watered down.” And HOW many books can you possibly have on the same subjects over-and-over. What is left to write?

I understand the need for educational and reference materials (I’ve written hundreds of them for Baseball-Almanac), BUT there should also be a bigger market for more “personal histories” that share the writers own admiration or dislike of historical subjects and individuals. I don’t want Shelby Foote to teach me about the battle of Gettysburg – I want to know what HIS interpretation of the engagement was. I am nowhere near the “level of notoriety” that Eric Wittenberg is, but I can comment on my own intentions as a budding-author. My books (sorry for the shameless plug) are clearly written w/ a Christian/Southern bias as my goal was sharing the stories of Jackson and Stuart as Christian soldiers. Of course I had to research and “fit in” the usual stuff (quotes, letters, service highlights), but it was merely in support of their story OFF the battlefield. If you wanted to learn the “academic side” of Stonewall or the Southern Knight, you would go to an academic source like a Robertson bio. The things that did not necessarily interest me (or were overdone in the past) may have been touched-on but I didn’t “force it” in there to fulfill some checklist of topics.

My point is (and I may be off the mark here) that good writing (historical non-fiction) is rooted in fact, but revealed as an extension of that author’s own desired interpretation. I wouldn’t want to read a dry presentation on anything – and if I do change my mind – I’ll refer to a textbook.

Eric’s work is exactly what it is… ERIC’s – and it is HIS passion and dedication to the subject – and his own obsessions with it – that makes his stuff worth reading. He did say that he wrote for entertainment and as a result (of his preferences) – it ends up being tremendously ENTERTAINING for the rest of us.

Strictly my own “uneducated” opinion here – too many “academic” publishing houses print nothing more than reference material for other writers – who take that information and breathe life into it. I’d like to see a hybrid of both and for more variety and passion and less tactical manifestos and analytical dribble. I’m not supporting the practice of publishing “revisionist” or this modern “new” history – but more of what makes a book worth writing in the first place… In my own experience (in the baseball genre) it is the legends and folklore of “Did Babe Ruth Call His Shot” – And not the box score and stats from the game that’s worth reading.

You are, of course, very welcome. I wouldn’t have said it if I hadn’t meant it.

And no, I doubt that even Dimitri would call you a centennialist. 🙂

I wholeheartedly agree with you that a paradigm would be welcome. For now, the definition seems to follow along with how Justice Potter Stewart of the U. S. Supreme Court once defined obscenity: I can’t tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it. Perhaps the key is to come up with an operational definition that’s agreed upon by at least a majority, and then see how things fit in it.

Here’s an example. We at Ironclad recently published a military study of the Battle of Averasboro. There’s plenty of civilian stuff–especially about hospitals and the like–in the appendices of the book, but the main body is purely a military analysis. Considering that the authors of the book are an active duty Special Forces lieutenant colonel and a just retired major who spent his career in Army aviation, it makes sense that the main body of the book is purely military history. Yet, when he reviewed it in Civil War News, John Marszalek blasted it–quite unfairly, I think–for not being sufficiently “new military history”.

As the publisher, I’m probably going to respond to it on the grounds that such is neither the purpose of the book nor the series that it was part of, and that, given that, it’s an unfair criticism.

Eric

The answer is both. My experience is that the anonymous readers are to evaluate the entire work, for factual accuracy as well as for readability, and their reports often point out areas that require correction/improvement.

Eric

I confess that I’ve found this discussion thoroughly enjoyable, especially when it’s been “all about me” (to quote a favorite country song). Certainly it’s earned me “props” with the wife!

Kevin’s right to point out that while I’m not a trained military historian, I attempted to bring elements of the “new military history” into a traditional narrative that would appeal to academics and non-academics. I’ve been praised and criticized both for not doing more of that. Frankly, I found the traditional framework darned seductive. But overall, both your comments, as well as those of other reviewers, suggest to me that maybe what we really need at this juncture is a common definition of “new military history.” I don’t think we’ll be all that far apart if we can just get on the same page.

On a wider note, I just continue to be fascinated in general, in a post-modernist sense, by how readers’ perceptions of books so often are different than what was intended by the author. At various places on the net I find that I’m a traditionalist, a trend setter, the author of the definitive Perryville book, not the author of the definitive Perryville book, a member of the anti-Thomas clique, and really not so hard on Pap after all. Now if someone can tell me if I’m a Centennialist or not…. 😉

Thanks to you both for the very kind words and your work in general.

Ken

(Cross-posted on Kevin’s site)

An observation and a question:

With what seems to be a large body of social history on the shelves of most bookstores I visit, I don’t understand the point to a university press trying to have a military history author fill a battle or campaign study with social history. It’s not as if that stuff isn’t being covered adequately already. Go figure.
As for your own experience with non-university press peer review, is the reviewer interested primarily in the factual intergrity of the manuscript, for instance checking dates, quotes, sources etc.? Are they also looking to readabilty and such, or are those matters reviewed by in-house editors?

Randy