Books Today vs Yesterday

[warspite1]

I have noticed more and more that I am finding problems in many of the military history books that I buy. These problems can be:

- spelling/grammar errors - which are irritating, but (usually) nothing more.
- factual errors - these can completely spoil the book, making me doubt what I am reading.

What I would be interested to know is, am I finding more problems because I am actually starting to learn some of this stuff and books have always been like this, or are standards of proof-reading/writing quality coming down.

I would be interested to hear any thoughts?

[SLAAKMAN]

What I would be interested to know is, am I finding more problems because I am actually starting to learn some of this stuff and books have always been like this, or are standards of proof-reading/writing quality coming down.

My first thought is that standards have lowered since competition between publishers have turned up the market.

[sullafelix]

Well grammar is now so bad in so many things I read it's a joke. I can say that because mine is so poor, for me to spot errors it's got to be bad.

Factual errors are a completely different story. Like you, I can deal with the grammar but factual errors make me want to throw whatever I'm reading in the trash.

My wife refuses to read some of the newspapers near here because the grammar is so bad.

[Fallschirmjager]

Depends on the kinds of errors. I have been reading a great deal on the Napoleonic era lately and depending on what I read I am finding some things to be very different. Number of troops and guns in any given battle, casualties, dates of movements.
Most of this information comes from previous works on the subject, diaries and dispatches. Also each authors tends to lend themselves to a different style. Some are conservative in their estimates while some give the wildest estimate.

With the advent of the internet is becoming easier for authors to collect more and more research for any given book. An American or English author can find contacts in France and Austria and Russia and collect more research than ever before and write a Napoleonic work. All of this information together can offer new insights.
Another example would be a book series the mentioned recently on the AE forums. The official naval history of the USN during WW2.
Morrison's work is fantastic but also contains many errors either through being wrong or errors of omission. He had almost no access to German and Japanese records and while he was a rear admiral he did not have a very high intelligence clearence. He had no idea that we had broken the Japanese and German codes. In his books he attributes a lot of our victories to luck and good commanders. He also relied on first hand accounts in the heat of battle and relied on first hand reports.
These contain errors and omissions. He also tended to believe everything he was told as it was told to him and he recorded it. Lastly, since he was indeed a member of the Navy professional courtesy still applied and he did not criticize anyone in the Naval command or Army command or civilian leadership.

[warspite1]

No problem of course with new sources of info or indeed, historians having different perspectives / interpretations on events.

What I am particularly annoyed about is - what seems to me - to be a worsening of standards. Obvious, clear-cut mistakes in the info presented by the writer - together with spelling errors and grammar problems not picked up by the proof-readers.

I must admit I now use the book reviews that Amazon provide more and more.

[Phatguy]

My biggest pet peeve in books and/or tv shows is bad maps.....I can deal with grammatical errors to a point but seeing a map thats "off" really gets my goat......

Case in point: About two weeks ago the military channel had a show on WW2. They used a cold war map of europe... You know, E and W Germany, Modern Poland, etc etc.. WTF??????? If it was just a one time deal, maybe.But they used it to show changing front lines.....Haven't watched the Military channel since...

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
With the advent of the internet is becoming easier for authors to collect more and more research for any given book. An American or English author can find contacts in France and Austria and Russia and collect more research than ever before and write a Napoleonic work. All of this information together can offer new insights.

One name springs to mind here : Adam Zamoyski.

I've got quiet the opposite impression : thanks to the 'Net and the opening up of archives in the former Warsaw Pact countries serious authors can research more deeply and have more and easier contacts with native speakers/researchers etc.

A good example of a modern book where deep research and the 'Net turned conventional wisdom on its head is "Shattered Sword" - the definitive book on Midway.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Canoerebel]

Major newspapers across the USA had to slash budgets and staff over the past three years.  As a result, the major daylies have shrunk in size and there are fewer editors reviewing the stories.  Where once it was rare to find a mistake in grammar, it's become a common occurrence.  (The same thing may be true of magazines, but I only read one and I'm responsible for the editing there.)
 
I'm not sure about the book publishing industry.  Perhaps it too is feeling the pinch (this seems likely since related industries, like major book retailers, are having a hard time of it).  Thus, publishers may be laying off editors so that "less eyes" reviewing means more mistakes; or maybe there's greater pressure to produce in volume, which always leads to mistakes.
 
Could it have anything to do with education?  With all the vast sums spent on education, and all the vast years students spend in schools and colleges, you'd think we'd be much more literate, knowledgeable and eloquent than were our ancestors.  So why is it that a bunch of men who were taught at home or tutored by teachers who knew far less than we do about many subjects....ended up writing things like the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Gettysburg Address.  Those guys knew how to express lofty ideals beautifuly, while the best students today can only manage to Twitter, text, and exclaim "WTF?"

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Those guys knew how to express lofty ideals beautifuly, while the best students today can only manage to Twitter, text, and exclaim "WTF?"

Maybe because todays best students don't have lofty ideals?

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Those guys knew how to express lofty ideals beautifuly, while the best students today can only manage to Twitter, text, and exclaim "WTF?"

Maybe because todays best students don't have lofty ideals?

I call bs on the notion that the best students today can only manage short text messages. Every medium has its language and the Twitter "language" is simply not meant for expressing long and complicated thought processes.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[ilovestrategy]

I major in ancient history. For me, the most detailed accounts for ancient history like Alexander and Xenophon are books written in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But one thing they lack is good maps. Modern day books on ancient history tend to gloss over the details but provide good maps.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
I major in ancient history. For me, the most detailed accounts for ancient history like Alexander and Xenophon are books written in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But one thing they lack is good maps. Modern day books on ancient history tend to gloss over the details but provide good maps.

I don't get this obsession with "things in the past used to be better" - upon closer inspection they rarely are and we're just seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses, whether it's wargames or books.

Young engineers starting at our company aren't any dumber than we were 25 years ago and I have trouble keeping up with all the new and exciting historical material that's getting published or becomes available online.

Ok, a couple of examples of some recent and well-received history books :

Europe's Tragedy: A New History of the Thirty Years War - best in-depth analysis of this conflict since ... well, ever.

The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans and the Battle for Europe - groundbreaking & myth-busting

Shattered Sword - the definitive myth-busting Midway book.

But I guess no matter how many examples I post : "things back then were better". Right.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[benpark]

Printing is far better today than ever before in the field of nonfiction history books. It's cheaper, easier to do and looks better. As far as the text, there will always be books that are better than others. There are simply more of them out there now due to the relative ease in the publication process as well as research over past methods.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: benpark
Printing is far better today than ever before in the field of nonfiction history books. It's cheaper, easier to do and looks better. As far as the text, there will always be books that are better than others. There are simply more of them out there now due to the relative ease in the publication process as well as research over past methods.

The biggest change has been the 'Net - if I want to investigate the Battle of Breitenfeld today it would take me less than an hour to dig up all the relevant books and websites containing a wealth of info. Back in the eighties we had unreadable Schiller. I rest my case.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[ilovestrategy]

Stertxe, I'm not saying that the old ones are better. It's just my personal observation that I can get more detailed information from older books than now, with the exception of maps. Maps and illustrations are one area where modern books put the older ones to shame. I mean Ancient History not WW2. You guys know a lot more than me in that regard.

I have no experience with printing, so I'm guessing maybe better printing technology has somethng to do with it.

Reminds me of my years in tanks in the Marine Corps when the tankers said the M60 was good and the Abhrams was a piece of garbage. They said the same thing about the 9mm taking over the 45 and the M16a2 taking over the M16A1 also. I hated the A1 though. Good riddance.

Shattered Sword is a new book though and I absolutely love it.

[JWW]

I agree.  More grammatical errors in books these days.  And as noted above, many more errors in newspapers.

[sparkRyder78j]

You would think there would be less errors thanks to computers but this is not the case.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I have noticed more and more that I am finding problems in many of the military history books that I buy. These problems can be:

- spelling/grammar errors - which are irritating, but (usually) nothing more.
- factual errors - these can completely spoil the book, making me doubt what I am reading.

What I would be interested to know is, am I finding more problems because I am actually starting to learn some of this stuff and books have always been like this, or are standards of proof-reading/writing quality coming down.

I would be interested to hear any thoughts?

Well war, I would say it is some of both.
When I went to publish my book, the proof readers wanted $.04 per word. At 50,000 words, a short book, it adds up fast.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I'm not sure about the book publishing industry.  Perhaps it too is feeling the pinch (this seems likely since related industries, like major book retailers, are having a hard time of it).  Thus, publishers may be laying off editors so that "less eyes" reviewing means more mistakes; or maybe there's greater pressure to produce in volume, which always leads to mistakes ...

School history books are also notorious for errors in fact and other miscues; the demand to "publish or perish" without the necessary vetting means more errors make it into print.

Perhaps electronic books -- with "patch" downloads -- are the answer?

[ilovestrategy]

I agree with school history books sometimes being in error in fact.