Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain

[Edward]

A thousand monkeys working at a thousand typewriters will eventually get you "It was the best of times. It was the blurst of times."

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

She has pretty solid academic credentials and seems to be involved in aircraft history off-duty as well. Which is much more than can be said for many other authors. I think even Axis Wings has her work.

Are you suggesting that authors should have solid academic credentials in order to research and write? What is the point you are making with what I have put in bold above? Please enlighten me, and others...

[edwest2]

I have 40 years at a publishing company without a college degree. Our head writer has no college degree. Both of us had to learn the publishing business by the seat of our pants. Learning how to write to inform and entertain takes years. It can be done.

However, unlike the illustrators we work with, writers seem more easily offended, to a greater or lesser degree. While I can tell an artist that a leg is too long, all writing is black ink on paper. A quick glance does not suffice. When converting original documents to book form, a way to order the material for the specialist reader and those just curious has to be chosen. There are plenty of fine examples in existence.

Unfortunately, descriptions and even titles chosen by publishers, and, in some cases, writers can create the wrong impression or put off potential buyers. Reviews on Amazon range from bad to atrocious. Far, far removed from proper book reviews. And if a review for a specialist book cannot be found quickly, what happens? Potential buyers tend to discount it.

I have seen many Ph.D. papers online. The writer usually offers only surface impressions with occasional bits of originality. A seasoned writer does not spring into existence overnight. I suspect that if some went on to write history books that they would drown in the deep water of actual research into original documents. It appears that 5 years is a minimum while 10 years or more is average.

There is no How to Write History Books to a High Standard in 5 Easy Lessons. Too many writers think they can complete a book in less time than what those documents would allow.

Finally, a proper discussion, such as can be had by two people sitting face to face or even on the phone cannot be had. It takes just one or two off hand remarks to cause a problem.

[John Vasco]

A good post ed.
However, I do take issue with this in your last paragraph: '...a proper discussion, such as can be had by two people sitting face to face or even on the phone cannot be had...' I cannot speak for others, but that is simply not true in my own experience.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Are you suggesting that authors should have solid academic credentials in order to research and write? What is the point you are making with what I have put in bold above? Please enlighten me, and others...

No, I am not suggesting that because my favourite aircraft authors have either aircraft engineering or test pilot background. But I am suggesting that Ms. Taylor's academic credentials have something to do with aviation history in the deepest sense. Which is very different from e.g. what that coalminer-looking man in a recent British Dambusters TV documentary had; that guy's credentials were in cultural history with zero connections to Dambusters. He was obviously chosen for the same reason the doc did not name Gibson's dog.

[Nick Beale]

But I am suggesting that Ms. Taylor's academic credentials have something to do with aviation history in the deepest sense.

I'd be interested to hear your reactions to reading Dr. Taylor's thesis on the dams raid. My own impression, as I posted earlier, was that she was more interested in reviewing others' writings and angles they might not have looked at (historiography). What she seemed less concerned with was herself exploring said neglected areas and presenting her findings.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

No, I am not suggesting that because my favourite aircraft authors have either aircraft engineering or test pilot background. But I am suggesting that Ms. Taylor's academic credentials have something to do with aviation history in the deepest sense. Which is very different from e.g. what that coalminer-looking man in a recent British Dambusters TV documentary had; that guy's credentials were in cultural history with zero connections to Dambusters. He was obviously chosen for the same reason the doc did not name Gibson's dog.

What are you suggesting, then? You state 'academic credentials' - what is the point you are making with regard to academic credentials? That academic credentials elevate someone to the point of being a better writer than others who do not have academic credentials? Or that academic credentials are a prerequisite to write history.
Please explain further...

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

What are you suggesting, then? You state 'academic credentials' - what is the point you are making with regard to academic credentials? That academic credentials elevate someone to the point of being a better writer than others who do not have academic credentials? Or that academic credentials are a prerequisite to write history.
Please explain further...

1. While academic credentials do not quarantee a good writer or good research, often it gives tools to deal with issues like source criticism and in general in scientific approach. That is especially true in the past when The academia was more merit-driven than politically-driven (=woke) .

2. Do the forumites have such a lousy memory here? Years ago a member by the nick "Rabe Anton" frequented here and he attacked with quite strong expressions any books not written by Ph.Ds while being very derogatory towards one's written by "amateurs". I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

Nor do I, and happily no one has done anything more than ask you to clarify what you meant. You’ve done that in your first paragraph and I think your point is reasonable. There are, of course, many professions where information is collected, competing viewpoints compared and potential sources of bias taken into account—all useful techniques for writing history. (One example might be Jonathan Sumption, a British Supreme Court judge who has written a five-volume history of the Hundred Years War).

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

1. While academic credentials do not quarantee a good writer or good research, often it gives tools to deal with issues like source criticism and in general in scientific approach. That is especially true in the past when The academia was more merit-driven than politically-driven (=woke) .

2. Do the forumites have such a lousy memory here? Years ago a member by the nick "Rabe Anton" frequented here and he attacked with quite strong expressions any books not written by Ph.Ds while being very derogatory towards one's written by "amateurs". I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

Sorry for continuing to push you on the posts that you put up, but I have to question what I have highlighted in bold.
1) what are these tools that academics have to deal with issues like source criticism? Quite frankly, that's a load of bollocks. And I'll tell you why with one prime example. One does not need to be an academic to know/realise that the Luftwaffe GQM returns are riddled with errors.
2) What is this 'scientific approach of which you talk?