I just finished Patton’s Payback by Stephen L. Moore and although the author is evidently very prolific, I don’t believe I’ve read anything else by him. In any case I wasn’t very impressed by the work. I won’t get into all the reasons why, but I’m curious how other readers of such histories react to minor, but obvious and inexplicable errors.

The book is about the Allies’ campaign against German and Italian forces in North Africa and it touched on Patton’s role in making it a success. For some reason the author was evidently fascinated with Patton’s sidearms because he mentioned them time after time. The thing that bothered me, though, was he kept referring to them as his “Colt revolvers”—plural. As most “gun” people who are also familiar with Patton’s weapons know, however, his revolvers were a Colt single action and a Smith and Wesson double action. In other words, he didn’t have plural Colts, and there was never any mention of the S&W 357 Magnum even though the latter revolver was visible in some of the photos in the book. Although it wasn’t the only error I noted, it’s the one that kept annoying me because it was repeated so many times, and a three-minute Internet search could have corrected the author’s mistake.

So, here’s my question about such things. Do they bother you when reading a serious history?
If so, why? Is it because it demonstrates the author’s laziness and lack of concern for his readers; does it raise questions about other possible, more serious factual errors; or for other reason(s)?
If not, why? Is it too minor to worry about; is it because you know what’s correct and that’s all that matters; or for other reason(s)?

Question:
Thinking of that specific error, would the misidentification of Patton’s revolvers bother you? (Please select the response that most closely represents your views.)
.

Choices:
Yes. It demonstrates the author’s laziness.
Yes. What other factual errors does the book contain?
Yes. Other reason(s).
No. It’s too minor to worry about.
No. I know what’s correct; that’s what matters.
No. Other reason(s).

 

With regard to your poll, the first option implies the second.

Yes, they are of course related, but which comes to mind first/most strongly?
And depending upon what the error is, I believe it’s possible they could be distinct: “Oh, everyone knows that. I don’t need to confirm it,” whereas he might be more careful about the more obscure issues. But ultimately you are correct.

I voted for #2 (other factual errors?) but I would have chosen #1 (laziness) also if multiple options were available.

Errors on details that are so easy to research and verify for correctness are a peeve of mine on pretty much everything. If you're going to take the time to write a book or make a movie/tv show, it's not hard to get the small things right so why not?

When it comes to serious historical books or cinematic productions, these types of errors really diminish my enjoyment in the telling of the tale and my belief in its accuracy. For a movie or tv show I'll grant a fair amount of leeway - using incorrect weapons for the period, but substituting something close in looks and age, etc. - but a book should should be accurate to the nth degree when it comes to facts that would take a 10-year old 10 seconds to verify.

I can't remember the last time I read a history book where I did not notice at least a couple factual errors. Bugs the crap out of me. I want a job reading draft books to ID and correct these errors. Every error casts doubt on the rest of the book, and especially makes me question the author's conclusions.

I know about both guns, even a third (pistol) don’t ask me how or why i read about them or saw numerous pics of then.
It’s not my business nor do i make money selling books with that info. But i’eve enjoyed military books most of my life.

Out of respect, if i want to talk about them guns, i would get my facts straight beforehand.

Just sayin’

0-0

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
I want a job reading draft books to ID and correct these errors.

Ah, how often I have had the same thought, and especially about the thrillers that are so popular and sell a gazillion copies. I would offer my services for a small fraction of the money they make—especially the ones made into movies.

I have a slightly different idea on history

in my opinion, history isn't about facts, its abut the narration and observations that are usually written by 'the winner' or a particular point of view, and those become the 'facts' - although they may be limited in overall scope

For example, you can have a history of WW2 written by an Englishman and by a German

while the outcome is known, the points of view are different, so the 'facts' contained in the narration will be different

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I have a slightly different idea on history

in my opinion, history isn't about facts, its abut the narration and observations that are usually written by 'the winner' or a particular point of view, and those become the 'facts' - although they may be limited in overall scope

For example, you can have a history of WW2 written by an Englishman and by a German

while the outcome is known, the points of view are different, so the 'facts' contained in the narration will be different

agreed,

and there is a however,

as in the facts (As in equipment known to be or issued) would be the same or should be the same, as what was actually used,

Agree.
One of my most memorable experiences learning PolSci in Belgium was reading about the Russian Revolution and the origins of the Soviet Union as described by the Soviet Party Official version, the French Communist Party and a right wing american source.

Interesting to see how that split he students between those who just swore by the commie stuff back without bothering to digest it first. Those who went for the more critic and realistic French version and The puny numbers that refused to drink the kool aid.

That was fun. It was our first year and the student group was full of (shitty) romantic and socialist ideals having never experienced a single day of their lives doing anything useful. Those at the center of the political spectrum were labeled Hitler Jugend. LOL, good times.

0-0

It might be the kind of factoid that is mentioned in passing, but doesn't get any real attention because it is more in the vein of trivia.

But it would be easy to get it right, and then you wouldn't wonder if he missed something else.

Is this popular history, or scholarly history? I would caution you against being to reliant on popular history in the first place, as it isn't always (although sometimes is) scrupulously researched.

Guess details are there for a reason. They provide hints of how far the research has gone and how the writer speaks from certain authority, this statement is just my personal opinion.
Details make stories more real and believable.

Remember reading many RogueWarrior books ages ago and one took place in my city, BA. The description of the streets, the people, the particulars of certain very familiar to me neighborhoods was amazing. Hardly doubt Ricky walked these streets in his life but the person the got doing the research and depiction made an outstanding job. You could use the book asa tour guide. Hardly a reference book, right?

You can probably write an excellent book about the SS and mention Himmler’s favorite Hi-Point and the book will become landfill.

0-0

Option number 2 here.

It's not a typo, if he mentioned them repeatedly. If you're going to put something in your history book, it ought to be right. "When in doubt, leave it out."

I dislike anything that is not represented correctly. A historical fact for sure, as well as a thing like a 1957 Chevy in a movie with a time line in 1955 etc.

Anyone read any of Bill O'Reilly's "Killing ...." books? He claims he's a stickler for getting the facts straight. I wouldn't know.

I’m not sure what the specific differences would be between “popular” and “scholarly” historical works because I’ve never given the idea too much thought. Based on a quick Internet search, I gather that The Journal of American History clearly falls into the latter category, in the same way that journals like Nature and Science are considered scholarly science publications. But do more popular books that are, for example, sold by Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc., not qualify?

This book by Stephen L. Moore is definitely several steps above the “men’s” magazines of my youth such as True and Argosy that ran articles which were presented as histories. This author has reportedly written 21 previous books on WWII and Texas history and as I recall it was reviewed in The Wall Street Journal. As for the book itself, it has a 14-page index and a nine page bibliography. Despite my complaints I would have considered it and the countless others in the same genre that I’ve read to be reasonably scholarly despite their popular appeal.

I too consider there to be a difference between objectively factual errors and differences among authors’ analyses and opinions, even if an opinion is contrary to what most historians believe and promote. For example, I may not believe that Sherman’s reputation as a despoiling war criminal is accurate, but that’s far different, IMO, than the claim that Patton’s signature revolvers were both Colts.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
the claim that Patton’s signature revolvers were both Colts.

Interesting article about Patton's sidearms.

According to this article from guns.com, Patton started out with one Colt, went to two after he'd had an encounter where he'd found one was not enough, then gave one of the Colts to a USO entertainer and replaced the Colt he'd given away with the S&W.

If true, there would have been a period where he was dual-Colted. Of course, that assumes this author did his homework - don't know him and can't vouch for that.

My thoughts:

O'Reilly's "Killing" books are to history what convenience store sandwiches are to fine dining.

Some rather well-known historians (such as Ambrose) may have glaring firearms-related errors in their books. Unless the gun is specifically germane to the narrative, I try not to let it bother me too much. (But it still does, because it makes me wonder what else they got wrong.)

Things that originated in oral legend/folklore/gossip make their way to print and have become viral on the internet. Even sources that we THINK should be reliable contain errors. For example: You would think that the article that Joel linked would be accurate because it comes from a "Guns" source. But the picture of the SAA in the article is some Uberti or Pietta commemorative (despite the fact that there's plenty of pictures of Patton's actual Colt.) Patton gave away a Colt to some entertainer during the war and THEN obtained his S&W .357? No, he got the .357 well before WWII, supposedly when he was in Hawaii. Never carried his 1903 pocket Colt? Hell, there's pictures of him carrying it. Also pictures of him with a Colt Detective Special (or PPS), as well as pictures of him on desert maneuvers in the States carrying his Colt Woodsman.

Kind of reminds me of the research in some ammo "history" articles posted on this board. Like any good history, I like to see primary sources or reliable secondary sources referenced. I'll have to dig through my stacks of old American Rifleman issues. I seem to recall a good article on Patton's guns from the last few decades.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
Anyone read any of Bill O'Reilly's "Killing ...." books? He claims he's a stickler for getting the facts straight. I wouldn't know.

They are actually pretty good, EXCEPT for 'Killing Jesus.' That book is trash - in that whoever really wrote it spent WAYYYY too much time delving into the sexual depravities of Julius Caesar. I mean, ok, he was a perv. I don't need to read in-depth details of how he forced children to perform sex acts, and then have them thrown off the 200-ft cliff on his 'Epstein Island.' It came across as creepy and pornographic, instead of factual and informative.

I think I actually threw my copy in the trash, which I have only done TWICE before. The first was a book on the USS Scorpion which was nothing but pure, fabricated BS, rumor, and unfounded speculation. The author made grand proclamations (such that the Soviets told the US they sank the submarine), yet made NO effort to prove his claims. He claimed that crewmen gave Top Secret information to his wife (they knew her husband was a reporter with a heavy anti-Navy bias) while she toured a US nuclear sub. He made other unbelievable claims, and never did present any evidence.

The other was 'The Secret History of NASA,' or some such nonsense. Idiot claimed the Apollo program was run by the Nazis, Illuminati, and Masons. Secret cities on the moon, some secret robot head they supposedly recovered, and other nonsense. I skimmed through it (bought it for $2 at a thrift store), and it was (again) unsubstantiated crap. It was entertaining reading, but easily debunked. One piece of 'evidence' was of an Alan Bean painting. There are straight lines cutting through the image. He, of course, zoomed in on the lines (one of the pieces of 'proof' in the photo section of the book), claiming this represented some subliminal or subconscious attempt to record the alien buildings he saw. Anybody with any familiarity with Bean's paintings would know this was a very famous painting that he superimposed lunar boot-prints across, to show how Man's visits to the moon will forever shape the way we see and understand the moon. I mean, the guy is a nut case if he believes ANY of what he wrote (and I suspect he doesn't).

I read all the other "O-Reilly" books except for 'Mob' and 'Crazy Horse' (just bought them; haven't had time to read them yet) and "Killing the Killers" (is this even out?). . .

I think it was Para who said these 'Killing...' books are pop history, and I agree. They are informative, and (from what I've been able to discern) mostly accurate. Meaning, I didn't spot any gross errors. There may be such errors in them, but my area of expertise (and what I did my Master's Thesis on) is the WWII air war. I can't really judge how accurate the Lincoln, Reagan, JFK books are, for example.

I would NEVER consider using any of his books as references for any serious academic/scholarly paper. I also did not use Stephen E. Ambrose's works (Band of Brothers, D-Day, etc) since he developed a reputation for plagiarism. Doesn't mean the books are factually incorrect; just that they are not what I would consider 'scholarly' sources.

I kind of went on a monologue there to demonstrate how important it can be to assess sources/books. Of course, the best sources are peer-reviewed by the larger community, which then pass this academic scrutiny. Somebody writing a thesis or dissertation cares a great deal about verifying sources; somebody just trying to sell copies and make the NY Times Best-Seller List won't necessarily be this particular.

Most casual readers would neither notice nor care about these distinctions, though.

quote:

Originally posted by mesabi:
My thoughts:

O'Reilly's "Killing" books are to history what convenience store sandwiches are to fine dining.

^^^^ What he said.