Muerrisch Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 Just arrived from N&M. This is a first impression only. It is for beginners: many, perhaps most, Pals do not need it, and between us we could have done rather better. Page 221/2 is in my narrow expertise, and contain at least 8 errors of commission or omission. At that rate one might dread 200pp x 8 problems = ? And, for nonsense, how about p103, where he equates the private soldiers' pay of 1/1- to a modern six pence? How many pints of beer can you buy with six pence today, compared with the soldier's three or four pints? This is probably unfair, but the matter is rather like picking up a tabloid and being asked to believe the contents after finding the one article or item covered which is within your experience or expertise is plain wrong. As an author myself, I know that a poor review is cringe-making, so I do hope someone can counterbalance my first impression, but, at the moment, I am not expecting much from the book. PS: among the websites listed, the GWF is omitted, so what can you expect from the content, when all human knowledge resides here? Go on, tell me I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Banning Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 Okay then, you are wrong. I know plenty of people who have a deep knowledge of the Great War who are not members of this or any internet forum. As for the book and its contents, I have no idea of how good it is (or isn’t). However, having acknowledged how ‘cringe making; a poor review is, could I suggest that you actually read the book in its entirety before posting your critical thoughts gathered from a first impression? I would have thought the author deserves at least that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc2 Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 Jeremy, sorry but I can't agree with you. When I read a new book, if it contains an area on which I am an expert, I read that section first. If it contains a lot of factual errors, I suspect that the rest of the book will as well. If the section I can review knowledgeably is not correct, why should I believe that the rest of the book is accurate? If the section I know about is inaccurate (I did not say simply poorly written), I may not even bother to read the rest of the book. Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of this particular book, nor do I have any connections with the author, so please don't read this comment as applying directly to this work, but only to the discussion as to how to do book reviews in general. Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 And, for nonsense, how about p103, where he equates the private soldiers' pay of 1/1- to a modern six pence? How many pints of beer can you buy with six pence today, compared with the soldier's three or four pints? That is really one of my pet hates, if they are going to make comparisons then they should make accurate ones. I wouldn't read it just for that. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 I wish more people would write what they think in reviews of books instead of the constant good reviews we tend to get. If someone makes a fundamental error on first impression, 1/1d is actually 51/2p then you will look for more. I now wonder how many errors are in the book as I visualize Grumpy with the book in one hand and a pen and paper in the other.......... Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Bennitt Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 N&M says it is essential and absolutely indispensable -- always terms that should be viewed with suspicion, IMHO. I wonder why you purchased it in the first place. It looks like the Great War equivalent of the complete works of Bach by Brilliant Classics, a curate's egg of a pot-pourri, to mix metaphors. No doubt on further reading even you will find a few nuggets, though whether you think they will make it worth what you spent, I know not. re the 1/1 = 6p, that is what crops up in the post-decimalisation era, the direct conversion of old money to new, without realising that it is a total nonsense if equivalent spending power is not factored in. I think it's done by machine. cheers Martin B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 I visualize Grumpy in a permanent frown combined with a pained expression. I believe I have met him but I'm not sure he remembers. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 Quite relieved that I have not ordered this book. First impressions do count unfortunately and if there are errors, then it will affect both your enjoyment and any "educational" element the remainder of the book may have. Errors encountered in the first few pages or a particular section affect your ability to give other "facts" credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 16 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 16 July , 2009 This is the N&M puff: A book for all Great War buffs - experts and beginners alike. Geoff Bridger has compressed a vast amount of data of all aspects of the conflict into a single, clear and beautifully produced volume. Absolutely indispensable. Sorry I spent £16 on it, and tried to be honest, stressing it was an impression. Look forward to Jeremy buying it and confounding my impression. I visualize Grumpy in a permanent frown combined with a pained expression. I believe I have met him but I'm not sure he remembers. Mick Sorry if I have been rude: at 72 years I am lucky to remember my own name which is, er, ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate Wills Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 (edited) This is N&M's complete blurb: A book for all Great War buffs - experts and beginners alike. Geoff Bridger has compressed a vast amount of data of all aspects of the conflict into a single, clear and beautifully produced volume. Absolutely indispensable.This is one of those books so essential that it is astonishing that no-one has thought of writing or publishing it before. Geoff Bridger, a recognised authority on the conflict, here compresses the vast field of information on all aspects of the Great War into a single, compact, and beautifully produced and illustrated volume. Packed with accessible data on everything from the contents of shells to trench foot, and from regimental insignia to the organisation of Armies, Bridger’s book is a gold mine of facts that will be indispensable to historians, people visiting the battlefields, and students studying the war in the classroom - as well as to the increasing numbers researching the part played in the war by a family forebear. As historian Correlli Barnett writes in his foreword, this book is ‘An essential resource...Geoff Bridger has done us all, professional historians included - a great service’. _____________________ I haven't seen a copy yet, but I am interested in the line "one of those books so essential that it is astonishing that no-one has thought of writing or publishing it before". We have a very hefty tome entitled Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War published by the War Office in 1922, which is also contains a vast amount of data of all aspects of the conflict in a single volume. Our copy is the Naval & Military Press reprint published in 1999. Can anyone advise as to whether the two books are similar. Should I have both? Edited 16 July , 2009 by Kate Wills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew lucas Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 i would have thought a resonable amount of the information would have been in the 'British Army Handbook' by Andrew Rawson, endorsed by Dr John Bourne at the Centre for First World War Studies not seen this myself so can't comment on it matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 It's amazing to see a book so heartily condemned by people who have not read it, nor even seen it, especially so by the so-called 'reviewer' who admits to a mere glance at a few pages. Glad I base my own analysis of people's work on wider criteria. I can only echo Jeremy's comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 One of the problems with buyng books on t'internet is that total reliance on reviews by others, I will only usually buy after having a good read and feel of them in a bookshop first. I'm always wary of 'in-book' reviews and endorsements....hardly likely to choose someone who says its b*ll*x, the endorser can then sit back and assume the position of 'expert'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 16 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 16 July , 2009 It's amazing to see a book so heartily condemned by people who have not read it, nor even seen it, especially so by the so-called 'reviewer' who admits to a mere glance at a few pages. Glad I base my own analysis of people's work on wider criteria. I can only echo Jeremy's comments. To be fair, Paul, Geoff Bridger acknowledges 'his old friend, Paul Reed'. As Mandy Rice-Davies said, 'he would say that, wouldn't he'. My 'glance at a few pages' was, as is pointed out above, naturally in my own field, and surely everybody does that, assuming that they have a field of competence? In my other field of competence, Regimental Numbers, p. 71. has the 1920 re-numbering confined to the Army Reserve and new soldiers. This will be news to anyone who knows anything about numbers, I think. Perhaps I am wrong. Tell me about it. I shall now doggedly read the book, mark up the errors, and publish them. If there are no more, I shall be happy to say so. After that, the book will be up for grabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drummy Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 I have ordered this book, and look forward to receiving a copy of it. Small errors that may exist aside, well done to the author for producing a work that appears to cover a wide variety of topics. I'm sure the author would appreciate productive feedback on any small errors found so that any future edition could be updated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 16 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 16 July , 2009 I have now speed-read the entire book. I am a trained proof-reader, so doubt if I missed much The book explains better than N&M its target readership: 'newcomers'. It is nicely produced, but by possibly over-priced. Nice paper and binding, an index but no footnotes and precious little quoting of references, so the impression is light-weight. The pictures are indeed excellent but too cramped in the rather small format. Very few typos. and written in a pleasant light style which I found a very easy read. An earlier contributor to this thread suggested that any second edition might welcome any errors pointed out. In the areas where I have a passing competence, and in addition to those pointed out above, I list them below. Before that, I confess to being hasty in condemning the reference to modern money equivalent. The quoted piece was misleading to anyone who had not absorbed the more rigorous treatment of 'then and now' values printed elsewhere, and might have been better as a stand-alone 'then and now'. What I perceive to be errors of omission or commission. p.54. Little understanding or poor explanation of the Special Reserve and the Depot. Actually misleading. p.63. 'regiment' is also the basic unit of cavalry. p.67. entitlement of clasp to 1914 star was by unit, not by an individual being in range of enemy mobile artillery. p.68. officers had to claim campaign medals p.188. a RSM was not the same rank as an RQMS. Heaven forbid! p.189. by using SDIGW as a source of ranks, he sews confusion. There is no understanding shown of the difference between a rank and an appointment, so 33 ranks [instead of only six, trooper, gunner, driver, pioneer, sapper and private] are shown for private soldiers. This despite King's Regulations being in the bibliography.The book lists an anachronism, Guardsman, and a demi-official one, Rifleman. p.203. One of the languages of Belgium is, I am told by a Belgian, Dutch, with a Flemish dialect. I hope the author and proponents of the book see these notes as fair, balanced, helpful and objective. As I would wish any fellow-author, I wish the book well, but cannot recommend it to the Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 16 July , 2009 Share Posted 16 July , 2009 To be fair, Paul, Geoff Bridger acknowledges 'his old friend, Paul Reed'. As Mandy Rice-Davies said, 'he would say that, wouldn't he'. That's a very cheap comment, David, and not worthy of the serious student or reviewer you claim to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 17 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2009 Paul, not sure if I have ever claimed to be a serious reviewer or researcher. However, I recognise that it was a cheap crack, and publicly apologise. What I do not apologise for is either my criticisms of the book, or my drawing attention to the following statement in the Acknowledgements: I am especially indebted to my old friend Paul Reed. ........ his knowledge and expertise on matters concerning the Great War are truly formidable. He kindly glanced over my manuscript and made several helpful and valuable suggestions ..... It is right and proper that you should leap to his defence, and it is right and proper for me to point out that your stance cannot be as detached as mine. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc2 Posted 17 July , 2009 Share Posted 17 July , 2009 It's amazing to see a book so heartily condemned by people who have not read it As I read this string, the only one who has commented adversely on this book is Grumpy ("people" implies more than one ). All other comments are more generic about how to review or evaluate books, and have nothing really to do with this particular one.... I certainly have not commented negatively on this particular book. Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 17 July , 2009 Share Posted 17 July , 2009 A critique of the critique of the critique. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 17 July , 2009 Share Posted 17 July , 2009 Good grief... I have better things to do, I must confess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unitedsound Posted 27 July , 2009 Share Posted 27 July , 2009 I bought this book two weeks ago and find it to be neat, concise and easy to read. I also enjoyed the content very much, especially the chapters on Trenches and Weapons. After reading Grumpy's second critique of the book, I'm happy. Happy in the knowledge that a real expert like him found very little wrong with the book at the end of the day. Highly recommended! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now