Bloody April

[Roxy]

Just bought this.

Any Pals read it?

Any thoughts?

Roxy

[John_Hartley]

Not read it, mate.

But heard his talk at the local WFA. Interesting & informative. Blew up several myths. And the genuinely funniest talk I've heard in ages.

John

[Roxy]

It already seems like a better buy than 'To the Last Man'

Roxy

[Dolphin]

Roxy

I'm reading it now, after it was finally released here. It's a very good account of the RFC's actions over Arras, including lots of excellent first hand accounts which show very well the difficulties faced by the airmen. Some of it might not be new to those who've looked in to the air war beyond in some depth before, but it's all well worth reading.

Perhaps it's a misleading first impression, but when I had a quick exploratory look in the book to see what was said about some notable airmen, I noticed that their country of origin wasn't mentioned when they came some somewhere other than the UK. We colonials can be sensitive about this.

I haven't finished the book yet, but I fully recommend it.

Cheers

Gareth

[Roxy]

Gareth,

I can understand you disappointment that the country of origin has not been mentioned. Rest assured, however, that every colonial airman (or airwoman for that matter) that I have every met has left me in no doubt of the country they serve (even if it's not the country of their birth!)

Roxy

I may have even let slip my 'Jockinese' roots

[Michael Molkentin]

I just read "Bloody April".

Hart does a great job at dispelling some of the popular myths surrounding the Arras battle, and the RFC in general. In particular, I was impressed with how he contextualised the air battle with the counter-battery work of the RA.

On the other hand, I was not impressed with the amount of lengthy "block quotes" that Hart employed. I personally don't like this style, and see it, (to borrow John Keegan's expression) "the historian as copy-typist". The historians job is to 'digest' this raw evidence for his/her readers, and to only quote small chips to illustrate the narrative. As far as I am concerned, if a lengthy block is quoted then it needs to be closely analysed, much like Prior and Wilson do. The quotes should not tell the story- that is the historian's job.

More paraphrasing and analysis would have made "Bloody April" a much 'punchier' book, without, I think, detracting from Hart's otherwise fine arguments and narrative.

(By the way, I think that precisely the same could be said about Richard Holmes' "Tommy"- an excellent analysis, but with far too much 'raw, undigested' evidence)

[PMHart]

Hi,

I must admit I totally disagree, but then I would, wouldn't I!

My books like ‘Bloody April’ (which by the way should have been called ‘Up the Arras’) are 'personal experience' books designed to show what war felt like for the participants, but at the same time to place these battlefield experiences within a broadly accurate historical context. Of course therefore they are chock full of personal experience accounts! They are designed for the popular market (they unfortunately clearly aren't designed well enough as sales are lousy!) and they are not academic treatises. For me, at least, nothing is as vivid and intense as the actual words of the veterans written down in letters or diaries at the time; or when written or spoken in retrospect. How could I or anyone else ‘improve’ on their words? I wasn’t there; they were…

And anyway why would you want personal experience accounts pre-digested? You need to think for your self, make your own mind up about these people and the validity of their experiences! In the 1960s and 1970s there were a number of books where historians pre-digested personal experiences and put them in their own words. But authors often exaggerated or misunderstand passages and worse still everyone went through the same filter and came out ‘sounding’ the same. Such books are now discredited because people want to read the ‘real thing’, not some half-baked author’s idea of what they might have said.

Strangely there is this potent myth of the ‘historian’ as some kind of super-academic brainy type. This is just not true in the field of military history where we are a small goldfish bowl of talent compared to ‘real’ historians operating in the oceans of medieval and modern history. I know many of our military historians and we are a right ropey old bunch! (Anyone liable to take offence I either don’t mean you, or don’t know you, OK?)

For me the real 'copy typists' are those who consider ‘academic’ research to be copying out bits of the Official History and reproducing the results in long turgid sentences occasionally changing the adverbs and adjectives! This is more common than I can tell you!!!! They may go to Kew and do lots of photocopying but in the end the Official History has pre-digested it for them and that’s what gets used the most!

By the way the endless duplication of the trite, envious and, worst of all, elitist phrase ‘copy typist’ is an example of that very lack of original thinking!

Cheers,

Pete

[Roxy]

Pete,

Thanks very much for giving your view - much appreciated. I have yet to finish your book (I was forced over the past month or so to read the Strategic Defence Review and associated UK government publications instead!) but am enoying it.

Roxy

[Terry_Reeves]

Pete

Thanks for that. It's interesting to view a publication from an author's perspective. I enjoyed it myself by the way.

Terry Reeves

[Martin Bennitt]

Hello Pete

Sales are lousy -- well I bought it, and Roxy bought it, and presumably so did some of the others who answered his post. So you've got quality sales if not quantity. I found it an absorbing read and an easy one -- what more does one want?

I've got 'Defeat at Gallipoli' as well, must look out some of your other ones.

cheers Martin B

[Michael Molkentin]

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your reply to my comments.

I completely agree that nothing is as vivid, immediate or 'authentic' as the actual words of combatants. The section in 'Bloody April" where you followed the soldiers over the top during initial breakthroughs on Vimy was 'hand on the pulse' type stuff. I can see why you have written in the style that you have, based on your intention to write 'personal experience' books. I did enjoy your book, and feel that it makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the air war, in the context of that in the trenches.

I don't believe however, that quoting lengthy portions of primary material is necessary to appeal to a popular reader. Take for example Charles Bean, the Australian official historian. His series (published in the two decades following the armistice) was unashamedly aimed at the general population; veterans and their families to be specific. Despite having more access to the combatants and their words than we ever will, he refrained from quoting page after page of their material, opting rather, to construct a narrative with his skills as a historian and a journalist. Of course, the soldier's words feature regularly in Bean's work. But they are woven into the narrative to illustrate the author's points. In a sense, Bean is in charge of the story and his veterans' words illustrate it, and evidence his claims.

As evocative as they are, soldiers' words can not tell the story of say, the Arras battle. By themselves they are a fairly random stream of thoughts and impressions from a myriad of different contexts. Each is limited by its author's own preconceptions of the (sometimes very narrow and smoke-filled!) world that they wrote in. The primary source needs the historian's words to interpret them, evaluate their validity and work them into a story that is much bigger than the few moments that they were writing in.

Of course, this is precisely what you, and any other competent historian does, just to different extents of "historian's voice" versus "historical actor's voice". I guess this is where our individual style comes into it.

I hope that you keep writing for the general reading public, Peter. Your books do exactly what you intend them to do- they do present an 'experience of battle' in a broadly accurate historical context, and they challenge popular assumptions.

Michael

PS- In regards to sales, it is any consolation Peter, I had to wait for my copy of 'Bloody April' after they all sold out in the first week that they arrived in Australia.

[austen33]

Interesting Stuff

I haven't read 'Bloody April' but have seen the talk based on it and also read Pete's (with Nigel Steel) book on Passchendaele. As someone who knew next to nothing about these they are good introductions which raise sufficient issues for the reader to follow up on if he or she so desires for example see Michael's comments on the RA counter battery work.

I think we have to bear in mind that in his 'real' job Pete is Oral Historian at the Imperial War Museum. Thus it is safe to assume that he has a greater access and knowlegde of the primary sources held there than most of us. If you want to access the primary sources but lack the time, money and to be blunt research skills to get them yourself or need to be pointed in the 'right' direction then perhaps books such as this open them up to a greater readership.

I myself like seeing or hearing the primary sources (I'm just about to start listening to the audio book version of Pete's work on The Somme - sorry bought at a bargin price through Amazon Marketplace so not much help with the royalities here !) but agree that it is part of the work of the historian to analyse and draw conclusions from these. However I don't think this is what in the main Pete is trying to achieve here - definetely not to write an 'offical history' of the RFC in Arras ?

Incidently at a WFA meeting I asked Pete how best to do soon elementary reading on another subject his has wriiten on (Gallipoli, again with Nigel Steel) rather flippantly asking should I read his book ? He replied that if I was serious I should look at the Offical History!

Austen

[David Seymour]

Reading "Bloody April" now. Brilliant!

David

[steve thomas]

Have to agree it's a great book. My perceptions of the RFC were largely shaped by "Aces High" (both the film and the Alan Clarke book). As a result I didn't really understand the reasons why we seemed to sacrifice our airmen in the way we did. This book opened my eyes and changed my whole view of the situation.

Thanks Pete

Steve

[David Seymour]

Completed Bloody April, now. A most impressive piece. I'd recommend it to anyone. Looking forward to reading Peter's work on the 1918 air war.

Best wishes,

David

[Nebogatoff]

Well, I liked it. One of the best books on the air war I've read. Look forward to reading the next one soon.

[burlington]

I am reading it at this very moment (!!) having bought the book when Peter visited the WFA Gwent Branch last month.

Great book, and his verbal presentation on the night was spellbinding!

Martin

[24463988]

I read it a while ago and loved it. I don't have a problem with the long quotes at all - though I can see the arguments. I actually think he is economic with that sort of stuff and it is all relevant. The window in to the lives of the aircrew really fascinated me and I always stop a little longer at RFC/RAF graves because of this book. It actually made me think about concentrating more of my battlefield wanderings on the air war - but I just like the whole subject too much to centralise any reading/exploring. In actual fact I've just finished Aces Falling, Peter's latest book on the subject and suppose I should check out or start a thread on it.

MB

[ALANJONES]

Peter

I am half way through The Somme and I think it is brilliant - and I think the way in which personal quotes are used and set/placed in context exactly right. They point the way for further research and study and allow the reader to apply the interpretation. Thanks! and i am off to get the other titles!

Alan

[Muskoka]

Peter, I'm off to the store tomorrow to help with your sales.

I'm just in the process of writing about Bloody April in my novel, as one of my main characters is with the RFC - a Canadian. Looking forward to reading your book!

Gabriele

[PMHart]

Hi Gabriele,

Is the Canadian a bit of a card and a first class bullshitter - who to his undeniable credit enjoys heavy recreational drinking and prone to painting passing farm animals various colours in his off-duty moments? Why not call him Bobby Verger?

Pete

[Muskoka]

Pete, he's actually not, although he does encounter Bishop. I used Bishop's son's bio about his Dad, and Bish's own words, as well as other sources, to draw a portrait of him. My fictional characters often mingle with real people - like Lord Beaverbrook, Nancy Astor, Albert Ball, John McCrae, who is from Guelph, where I live - which I think helps to give more of a sense of the history I'm trying to recreate. Tons of research, which I love doing!

My first novel (I'm working on book 2) in this series is getting great reviews from readers, who tell me they have learned lots about history, but have also become more interested in it. One guy said that after reading about the Lusitania in book 1, he was keen to know more, and after watching a documentary about it on TV, was impressed to see how accurate I had been.

So I feel a responsibility to get facts right, even while using a bit of artisitic license - e.g. I have Richthofen painting his Albatros red a few months earlier than he did.

Gabriele

[Muskoka]

Pete, your book is sold out, unavailable, not to be had at the major chains or online (Amazon.ca, etc.) here, and also not available at my local university library.

I hope that means that you've been doing well with it! ($$$)

I'm going to be doing research at the War Museum in Ottawa in February, so hope that their bookstore has a copy!

Gabriele

[PMHart]

Hi Gabriele,

No sales are still slow and I'm now barred from any more air books by my cheery publishers! I looked on 'Amazon for lovable Canadians' and they have indeed sold out themselves but there are several for sale pretty cheap from the other sellers to the right of the page.

Hope your book goes well!

Cheers,

Pete

[Muskoka]

Hey, Pete, I just ordered your book through my small, local bookstore. They are sure they can get me a copy. Yeah for the independents!

Gabriele