"Amiens 1918", Blaxland

[Steven Broomfield]

I received a Pen & Sword catalogue yesterday and was intrigued to see Gregory Blaxland's book, Amiens 1918, advertised. I was less than impressed, however, by the way it is marketed.

 

The puff states: "Gregory Blaxland has (my emphasis) written a superb account of 1918". Now, am I being picky here? The book was written way back when (I have a copy somewhere but I can't lay my hand on it to check) and the author died in 1986 - so surely the correct expression would be "Gregory Blaxland wrote ..."? To use the expression P&S do implies, surely, that it is a recent production, and therefore is attracting people to buy a rather old book as if it were the result of new research?

 

I'm not saying it's not a very good book, but as it must be cracking on for 40 years old, much has been learned about the campaign which supercedes this volume? Additionally I'm pretty sure I bought it second hand years ago, so lashing out the RRP of £25 for this is a little excessive.

 

Am I being particularly critical here?

[Resurgam13]

It was originally published in 1968 by Frederick Muller and is not particularly scarce, so it does seem an odd choice for re-publication. I imagine it will be in the Naval and Military Press 2020 Summer Catalogue for £2.99.

 

My pet peeve is the re-issue of books with different titles to the original. I bought "Fatal Charge at Gallipoli" ( Pen & Sword, 2015 ) only to discover that it was a reprint of "Goodbye Cobber, God Bless You" from 2004, and this does seem to be becoming more prevalent.

[trenchtrotter]

Still a great account by Blaclabd. Re read it again this Jan. A nd yes second hand copies easily available under a tenner.

[Loader]

I too have been taken in by a change of title. Can't recall the book now but I took it back to the store & got a refund. I wonder if this is the publishers' ploy or if the author has any input in it? Not a nice practice in any case.

[nigelcave]

But a very common practice - e.g. I can remember buying a couple of PG Wodehouse novels only to find that I already had them under a different title.

[josquin]

Steven,

 Your warning is appreciated with respect to this instance of the reprinting of a 1968 volume fashionably refurbished as an ostensibly contemporary first edition.

As always with publishers, caveat emptor.

Josquin

[Steven Broomfield]

5 hours ago, nigelcave said:

But a very common practice - e.g. I can remember buying a couple of PG Wodehouse novels only to find that I already had them under a different title.

 

A Trooper in the Tins was republished as Troop Horse and Trench a while back so what's good enough for PG obviously suits the Household Cavalry!

4 hours ago, josquin said:

 

As always with publishers, caveat emptor.

Josquin

 

Quite.

[nigelcave]

6 hours ago, josquin said:

Steven,

 Your warning is appreciated with respect to this instance of the reprinting of a 1968 volume fashionably refurbished as an ostensibly contemporary first edition.

As always with publishers, caveat emptor.

Josquin

Yes, but to be fair, it does (a) retain the original title and (b) does state that it is a simple reprint of the original, with a few more photographs thrown in.

[Crunchy]

I still have my original copy purchased in 1971. It is a fair and balanced account of the last 100 days from the British Commonwealth perspective. One of the best written in the 1960's that has pretty much stood the test of time. If you haven't read it, it is worth grabbing a copy of the reprint. It reads well.

 

Chris

[Steven Broomfield]

I might dig my copy out and re-read. Thanks, Chris.

[Crunchy]

Good stuff Steve. You won't be disappointed. A  good read.

 

Chris

[Marilyne]

Just finished reading it, in the original version, out of the Belgian Defense library collection.

You were tight all, it's a very good read. I now and then had to go back a few pages beceause the jumping from one side of the line to another went quite fast, but it's a very good introduction to the matter of the last 100 days. I'd like to go a bit deeper into the battle of Amiens itself, which I initially thought the book was ALL about, but I am clearly not dissappointed by this book.

 

M.

[nigelcave]

Glad you liked it. I was the one, I admit, who recommended the reprint (as I have of his Dunkirk book). I think he writes well and easily (the big positive), uses his 'individual exploits' well in the broader narrative and has done his homework, as well as having (what I consider is) the advantage of military service. It is a sound tome and acts as a good introduction to a very complicated several months of the war.