Eric

As for Eric, Brooks, and all the other “speakers” in this particular conversation, I really do appreciate what all of you do in giving up your time and speaking to groups like ours. In my case, especially, when our group is willing to offer little to a speaker other than their supper, your dedication enriches our learning experiences, many times at a cost to you. I do the lecture circuit here in NC myself, and I don’t mind it at all. Most of the time it is considered part of my job and so I am compensated for it in one way or another. But for so many of you, it is simply your dedication that makes it worth your while, and as a program chair I appreciate all of our speakers.

Andrew Duppstadt

Again, where bringing along one’s books is a good marketing advice for individual authors, they can do this. But you’ll have to understand that for others, including me, this isn’t how we choose to go about doing business, and given the travel time and other commitments involved, it’s financially counterproductive. That’s one of the benefits of exchanges like this: you learn that different people have different opinions and reasoning.

I refrain from generalizing about CWRTs, because I’ve had diverse experiences. Let’s put it this way: where people treat me like a professional (as is the case with the Ann Arbor RT), they find that they enjoy my visit better, they tend to get more out of me, and I speak highly of them to my peers when we discuss where to go and where not to go. Where I’m expected to hawk my wares and bring them along and then hear snide comments, well, guess what happens.

Speaking once or twice a year, I can relate to the problems you encounter. In our defense, most roundtables have a member that should be kept in a cage. It is almost impossible, for us, to keep someone from spewing their theories, implying they are smarter than the speaker, asking off topic questions or just rambling on. I agree that no one should be invited to speak unless a speaking area can be provided. We will not ask an outsider speaker during the slow months because we don’t want you to see six people.

Getting programs together is a thankless task. For many of us, getting to meet an author and getting our books signed is an event. Keeping that in mind might make the hours of travel, bad meetings and fools a little easier to handle.

As a general proposition, the cost/benefit calculation ought to be positive. If its purely financial, that’s one thing. If there are intangibles (eg, satisfaction at educating those of us who still like to learn new things), that’s another. If the topic is fresh enough, that ought to inspire some of us to crack our wallets open. If I don’t want an author’s signature, online shopping is fine. But webshopping can’t beat having a book personally addressed to me by its author, especially when I’ve made a personal connection by chatting live.

My two cents, Eric: I would hope you won’t turn down an invitation to speak in Michigan and, by some arrangement (perhaps a local bookstore would like to get in on the RT action), your books would be available for purchase and signing.

I say this to an Ohioan even though a sign at an Indians/Tigers game this week at Jacobs Field disparaged all of our Michigan-based sports teams by comparing them to your more successful Ohio counterparts. How inconsiderate. So what if the inconvenient truth is that recent history proves the point? My consolation is the sign-holder left off the NHL. I still have my Red Wings!

But I think that a reply I posted in Civil Warriors to a comment made in response to a post I made and from which Eric has quoted is useful in understanding my position:

“I think members of CWRTs are not always familiar with the lives of
professional historians. I get plenty of opportunities to speak in public, sometimes for rather good compensation. Speaking before CWRTs forms a rather small part of my speaking schedule: currently I do it for good friends or as a professional favor. Moreover, between the advent of the internet and C-SPAN, there are ways for me to reach a far larger audience at less cost. Historians now often participate in conferences open to the public for a fee, which also has an impact on CWRTs. And there are plenty of people who do not belong to CWRTs (and many more who do belong to CWRTs) who can interact with us directly at these public talks or via the internet.

People pay all the time for the professional expertise of all sorts of people: only when it comes to historians does there seem to be an assumption on the part of people who do not even know the historian to assume that they are entitled to the same level of professional insight for no charge. I think Mark {Grimsley}’s outlined the costs we bear in talking to CWRTs, and as an economic proposition, it’s a losing one without any compensating professional benefit (except the notion of local service).

One question that I think needs to be addressed is why do you want us to speak to you, and how much is that worth to you? If the appearance of professional historians comes at the expense of exposing local talent, as you suggest, well, that’s a matter for the CWRTs to address. But I think those members of CWRTs who think they are doing us a favor by inviting us might pause to reconsider that premise. It’s much easier to obtain our
books nowadays; we don’t gain in prestige among our peers for these speaking opportunities; as an economic proposition, it’s a losing one (and, frankly, an honorarium may bite into that, but it still remains a losing proposition). We come to speak because we love our work and we want to share that with you; you underestimate how much we view our vocation as an
avocation if you think otherwise.

I apologize if I misquoted or misinterpreted.

Best regards,
Russell Bonds

Dave Smith…10 years? Now that deserves a medal. 🙂 Not surprisingly, I have already told members here who have complained that if they think they can do better, you can have the job. No takers yet. 🙂 Some have actually questioned me as to why I will be having 2 female speakers this calendar year. Some attitudes never change, I guess.

Ken Noe’s talk here was one of the better ones we have had in my 10 plus years as member of the RT. Main reason why is because it was on a topic that is rarely discussed here, being the War in the West and of course the Battle of Perryville.

David Corbett, Your point is well taken, and have asked members to talk about certain subjects, and all say no, as in they don’t have the time etc.

I am very grateful to have the chance to talk to folks like Mike and others as to how their RT’s work and it has been helpful to network this way. Mike and I have talked quite a bit about getting speakers. Good way to blow off steam as well. 🙂

Thanks to all for the kind words, and I look forward to having Russ and Jim speak in NYC in the next few months.

Regards from the Garden State,

Steve